Document: 386 U.S. 120 87 S.Ct. 820 17 L.Ed.2d 771 KILGARLIN et al.v.HILL al. No. 235. Decided Feb. 20, 1967. Rehearing Denied April 10, See 999, 1300. William E. Wright, for appellants. Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Asst. Gen., and Mary K. Wall, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 Following judicial invalidation the constitutional statutory provisions governing apportionment Texas State Legislature, Legislature reapportioned both House Senate. Appellants promptly challenged on various grounds constitutionality H.B. 1951 which Representatives in a combination single-member, multimember floterial districts. The District Court sustained all aspects plan except those respecting counties included 11 districts, 252 F.Supp. 404, were found violative equality principles announced Reynolds v. Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 12 506. court did, however, over appellants' objections, permit 1966 election to proceed under 195 with proviso effect that if legislature did not adopt corrective legislation by August 1, 1967, districts would be reconstituted as representatives assigned elected at large. 2 We affirm Court's action permitting although constitutionally infirm certain respects. In particular circumstances this case there is ample precedent court's action. Drum Seawell, 383 831, 86 1237, 16 298; Toombs Fortson, 384 210, 1464, 482. also judgment insofar it held appellants had proved their allegations was racial or political gerrymander violating Fourteenth Amendment, unconstitutionally deprived Negroes franchise because its utilization multi-member an unconstitutional 'crazy quilt.' 3 another respect, committed reversible error. alleged addition inequalities inherent infringed Amendment rights remaining legislative unacceptable variations from principle Sims among population per representative should substantially equal. Appellants' proof showed these other varies 54,385 71,301, 14.84% overrepresented 11.64% underrepresented. ratio between largest smallest district thus 1.31 1. deviation average greater than 10% single-member total 55 eight ideal more 6%. 4 two grounds. First, burden only demonstrating degree variance but 'negat(ing) existence any state facts sustain legislation.' 414. This, held, done. At time, course, Swann Adams, 385 440, 569, 501, been announced. Under quite clear unless satisfactorily justified evidence record, variances size significance evident here are sufficient invalidate plan. Without such justification, analysis made out Amendment. 5 Second, Court, resting exclusively ruling, deviations equal amply they resulted bona fide attempt conform policy requiring plans respect county boundaries wherever possible. doubtful, kind 'minor' indicated might local policies counseling maintenance established subdivisions plans. 578—579, 1390—1391. But we need reach question, convinced necessitated range here. first place, policy, elaborated Attorney General concurred Court,2 permits formation even, where necessary, violation lines order surmount undue variations. second relate declared justification specific nor demonstrate why how integrity required called 195. Nor articulate satisfactory rejecting least presented court, respected produced smaller Sims. Similar fault can accepting general county-line occur present created 1.21 seven 13% more. Another five 8% 6 raise challenges Dallas, Bexar, Harris Counties. Dallas Bexar Counties relatively densely populated Measured alone, each could support one allocated 195, nearly approximate arithmetic ideal. Giving them not, violate lines; cannot sure, record view 150-member limit Representatives, must denied additional representation adhere throughout State. If reformed within way afford same time re-formed representation, have meet question whether advanced justifies seeming3 underrepresentation Counties, 6.42% 7.59% respectively. now before us do issue believe give further consideration counties. 7 complain 24 County six whereas 22 slightly representatives. establish growing rapidly compared soon justify extra representative. This factual determination being here, accept ruling regarding 8 reversed part remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 9 It so ordered. 10 Judgment remanded. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. While I join opinion reserve decision aspect problem concerning 13 regime voter has vote office filled. allows majority defeat minority fronts. suggested person able legislator, theory minority, either otherwise, chance elect 14 am sure my own mind resolved. fact claim constructed manner effectively disenfranchised, when once again Court. 15 CLARK HARLAN STEWART entirety, basis reasoning contained HARLAN's dissenting 447, 574, 501. Vernon's Ann.Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Art. 195a contains Bill Senate reapportionment 1965, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. 193a, issue. expressed letter Speaker House, Appendix 'D' below, 455—456. May 19, 1965 Honorable Ben Barnes Austin, Dear Speaker: As result analyzing briefing Section 26, Article III Constitution 1876 (Vernon's Ann.St.) recent decisions Supreme subject reapportionment, reached following legal conclusions. Whenever single entitled representative, shall apportioned county. 2. Multi-representative may run at-large individual or, methods. 3. does entitle joined contiguous until proper achieved. above cited provision requires kept intact violated. 4. Should keeping 'one man, vote' rule, then violated extent necessary carry mandate instances, remain multi-county flotorial formed joining complete conclusions set clearly concisely These thorough well federal decisions. Our research thoroughly developed history interpretation sessions immediately prior subsequent adoption involved. Yours very truly, s/Waggoner Carr cases foreclose attempts show given invidiously discriminatory. Burns Richardson, 73, 88—89, 1286, 376. recently adequately represented, overrepresented. Banzhaf, Multi-member Electoral Districts—Do They Violate 'One Man, One Vote' Principle, 75 Yale L.J. 1309 (1966).

Category: 1