TXXE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Hon. Ned Granger Opinion No. M- 1182 

County Attorney 

Travis County Courthouse Re: Whether the boundaries of 

P. 0. Box 1748 

Austin, Te xas 78767 

county commissioners precincts 

should be determined by the 

number of registered voters 

or by the total population 

in order to comply with the 

“one man, one vote” rule 

Dear Mr. Granger: the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Your recent letter requesting the opinion of this office 

concerning the referenced matter states, in part, as follows: 

“Travis County Commissioners precinct boundaries are currently determined in accordance with 

the total number of persons registered to vote in 

Travis County. The recent changes in election laws 

which now permit persons of age eighteen to vote 

have altered the previous ratio of registered 

voters to total population in some areas due, in 

part, to the concentration of students in some 

parts of Travis County. 

“The Travis County Commissioners are now 

confronted with the following question: 

“Should the forthcoming redefining of County 

Commissioners precinct boundaries be done in 

accordance with total numbers of persons registered 

to vote in Travis County, or does the U.S. Supreme 

Court’s requirement of ‘one man, one vote’ require 

that precinct boundaries be established on the 

basis of total population within Travis County?” 

In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), the United States 

Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment applied to the apportionment of state legislatures, that 

every qualified resident had the right to a ballot for election of 

-5769- 
Hon. Ned Granger, page 2 (M-1182) 

state legislators that was of equal weight to the vote of every 

other resident, and that such right was infringed when legislator 

were elected from districts of substantially unequal population. 

However, the Court also said in Reynolds v. Sims, supra, that: 

“We do not here consider the difficult 

question of the proper remedial devices which 

federal courts should utilize in State legislative apportionment cases. Remedial techniques 

in this new and developing area of the law will 

probably often differ with the circumstances of 

the challenged apportionment and a variety of 

local conditions. . . .I’ 377 U.S. at 585. 

In Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968), the 

Supreme Court applied the Reynolds rule to Texas county commissio, 

precincts, and held that local units with general governmental 

powers over an entire geographic area may not, consistently with 

the Equal Protection Clause, be apportioned among single-member 

districts of substantially unequal population. 

The Court’s decision in Aver consistently spoke in ten 

of districts of equal population, -8 rat er than districts having an 

equal number of registered voters. The Court said 

II 

. . . We hold today only that the Constitution permits no substantial variation from e ual 

population in drawing districts for units o &al 

government having general governmental powers over 

the entire geographic area served by the body.” 

(Emphasis added.) 390 U.S. at 484-85. 

Further, in the course of the Avery decision, the Court stated th: 

11 

Consti;u;i&r 

Our decision today is only that the 

imposes one ground rule for the 

development of arrangements of local government: 

a requirement that units with general governmental powers over an entire geographic area 

not be apportioned among single-member districts 

of substantially unequal population.” (Emphasis 

added. ) Id. at 435-86. 

- 

In Hadley v. Junior College Dist. of Metro. Kansas City~ 

MO., 397 U.S. 50 (1970), the Supreme Court applied the Reynolds- 

-5770- 
Hon. Ned Granger, page 3 (M-l 182) 

Aver rationale to the election of trustees of a junior college a+. istrict. The Court’s language in Hadley.spoke as follows: 

I, 

. . . We therefore hold today that as a 

general rule . . . the Equals Protection Clause 

of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that each 

qualified voter must be given an equal opportunity to participate in (elections) . . 

and when members of an elected body are cho;en 

from separate districts, each district must be 

established on a basis that will insure, as far 

as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters 

can- vote for proportionally equal numbersof 

officials.” (Emphasis added.) 397 U.S. at 56. 

The foregoing language of the Supreme Court would seem to 

indicate that districts composed of an equal number of registered 

voters, as opposed to persons, would be constitutionally sanctioned. 

In Pate v. El~Paso County, Texas, 324 F.Supp. 935 (W.D. 

Tex.) (3-judge court) aff’d 400 U.S. 806 (1970), the court had 

occasion to pass upon’thenstitutionality of an El Paso County 

redistricting action in which the four county commissioners’ precincts had been redrawn. In that case, the county commissioners 

had redrawn the precinct lines on the basis of registered voters 

in the district, rather than on a population basis. The federal 

district court concluded as follows: 

I, (T)he Court having determined that 

because of’the large military personnel in El 

Paso County who maintain voting residence in 

other places a division by registered voters 

would more fairly comply with the one man, 

one vote rule than by population, and the 

Commissionersounty having 

submitted to the Court a map dividing the - 

county into four Commissioners precincts with 

voter registration as follows: 

“Commissioners Precinct l---23,674 

“Commissioners Precinct Z---23,721 

“Commissioners Precinct 3---23,923 

“Commissioners Precinct 4---23,971 

-5771- 
Hon. Ned Granger, page 4 (M-1182) 

“In accordance with the registered voters 

list of January 31, 1970, the Court finds that 

said division as appears on said map . . . is 

reasonable and proper. ” 324 F.Supp. at 940. 

Thus, the Pate decision explicitly sanctioned the use of districts 

based on theumber of registered voters resident therein as being 

constitutional in light of Reynolds, Aver and Hadle 

decision was affirmed, -without opinion, +’ y the Unite +&a% sern, 

Court. 

In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the 

Travis County Commissioners Court may adopt the redistricting plan 

which most fairly complies with the one man, one vote rule for its 

four commissioners’ precincts; that is, based upon that criterion, 

to .ado.pt one based on either registered voters or total population 

of the new districts, and that either of such methods of redistricting so adopted would be constitutional in light of the Supreme Court 

“one man, one vote” rule, provided the numbers in each district, of 

either registered voters or total population, was substantially equa 

to that of the other districts. 

In so holding, we would point out that once a commissioner 

court decides on which of .the two formulas to use as a basis for redistricting (i.e., either registered voters or total population), it 

must apply the formula to each of its four commissioners’ precincts. 

SUMMARY 

To comply with the U.S. Supreme Court requirement of “one man, one vote”, a commissioners 

court may, in its judgment, depending upon which 

most fairly complies with the one man, one vote 

rule redistrict its- four precincts on the basis 

of either total registered voters or total 

population, resident in each precinct, provided 

that, as redistricted, the number of registered 

voters, or total population, in each precinct is 

substantially similar to the others. Once the 

registered voter or total population formula is 

adopted? it must be applied to each of the four 

commissioners’ precincts. 

ey General of Texas 
Hon. Ned Granger, page 5 

Prepared by Austin C. Bray, Jr. 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman 

Gerald Ivey 

Bob Lemens 

Linward Shivers 

Harriet Burke 

SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

(M-1182) 

-577%