Document: 424 U.S. 636 96 S.Ct. 1083 47 L.Ed.2d 296 EAST CARROLL PARISH SCHOOL BOARD and East Carroll Parish Police Jury, Petitioners,v.Stewart MARSHALL. No. 73-861. March 8, 1976. PER CURIAM. 1 The sole issue raised by this case is how compliance with the one-man, one-vote principle should be achieved in a parish (county) that admittedly malapportioned. 2 Plaintiff Zimmer, white resident of Parish, La., brought suit 1968 alleging population disparities among wards had unconstitutionally denied him right to cast an effective vote elections for members police jury1 school board. See Avery v. Midland County, 390 474, 88 1114, 20 45 (1968). After hearing District Court agreed were unevenly apportioned adopted reapportionment plan suggested jury calling at-large election both board.2 1969 1970 held under plan. 3 proceedings renewed 1971 after Court, apparently Sua sponte, instructed board file plans revised accordance census. In response, resubmitted Respondent Marshall was permitted intervene on behalf himself all other black voters Carroll. Following again approved multimember arrangement. intervenor appealed,3 contending would tend dilute violation Fourteenth Fifteenth Amendments Voting Rights Act 1965. 4 Over dissent, panel Appeals affirmed,4 but rehearing en banc, court reversed.5 It found clearly erroneous Court's ruling not diminish voting strength Parish. Relying upon White Regester, 412 755, 93 2332, 37 314 (1973), it seemingly districts unconstitutional, unless their use afford minority greater opportunity political participation, or single-member infringe protected rights. 5 We granted certiorari, 422 1055, 95 2677, 707 (1975), now affirm judgment below, without approval constitutional views expressed Appeals.6 Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 346-347, 56 466, 482, 80 L.Ed. 688, 710 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). 6 adopting multimember, plan, silent as relative merits And Appeals, inexplicably our view, declined consider whether erred Connor Johnson, 402 690, 91 1760, 29 268 (1971), endorsing resting its decision instead grounds. have frequently reaffirmed rule when United States district courts are put task fashioning supplant concededly invalid state legislation, preferred absent unusual circumstances. Chapman Meier, 420 1, 17-19, 751, 761-762, 42 766, 778-780 (1975); Mahan Howell, 410 315, 333, 979, 989, 35 320, 335 (1973); Williams, 404 549, 551, 92 656, 658, 30 704, (1972); supra, at 692, 1762, 271. As banc opinion amply demonstrates, no special circumstances here dictate districts. Thus, we hold shaping remedial relief abused discretion initially ordering 7 On basis, Affirmed. 8 Judgment affirmed. 9 Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, concurring. 10 I unnecessary reach question discussed ante, 638-639, n. 6. was, observes 6, "not petitioners, nor did respondent cross-petition." scope § important matter undertake express any view what discusses way dicta Louisiana, governing body parish. Its authority includes construction repair roads, levying taxes defray expenses, providing public health, performing duties related health welfare. La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 33:1236 (1950 Supp. 1975). Prior 1968, Louisiana law prohibited juries boards. July Governor enabling legislation permitting La. Laws 445, codified §§ 33:1221, 33:1224 (Supp. 1975); 561, 17:71.1-17:71.6 Both Acts submitted Attorney General pursuant 1965, 79 Stat. 439, amended, U.S.C. 1973c, rejected because discriminatory effect Negro voters. letters, June 26, 1969, Sept. 10, from Jerris Leonard, Assistant General, Civil Division, Jack P. F. Gremillion, Louisiana. Indeed, cited exemplifying dilution ballot may cause. Letter Supra. original plaintiff, allowed withdraw case. Zimmer McKeithen, 467 F.2d 1381 (CA5 1972). During pendency appeal purported order approving substitute stead complex redistricting Marshall. vacated ground filed, lost jurisdiction over Id., 1382. 485 1297 1973). Government has filed Amicus brief, which argues preclearance procedures must complied prior adoption federal local legislative covered Act. This cross-petition. event, agree F.2d, 1383; 1302 9, court-ordered resulting equitable adversary controlled 5. Had reapportioned itself own authority, clearance been required. Waller, 421 2003, 44 486 (1975). However, submitting purport reapportion see 2, Supra, statutes therein, boards adopt elections. App., 56. Moreover, since opposed Act, itself. Supra ; Tr. Oral Arg. 13-14, 31-32, 43-44. Since scheme order, do apply. 691, 1761, 268, 270 (1971).

Category: 1