Document: 437 U.S. 535 98 S.Ct. 2493 57 L.Ed.2d 411 Wes WISE, Mayor of the City Dallas, et al., Petitioners,v.Albert L. LIPSCOMB al. No. 77-529. Argued April 26, 1978. Decided June 22, Syllabus Respondents, Negro and Mexican-American residents Tex., brought this action for injunctive declaratory relief against petitioners, members Dallas Council, alleging that Charter's at-large system electing council unconstitutionally diluted vote racial minorities. After an evidentiary hearing, District Court orally declared unconstitutional then "afforded city opportunity as a legislative body to prepare plan which would be constitutional." The Council passed resolution expressing its intention enact ordinance provide eight elected from single-member districts three remaining members, including Mayor, at large. extensive remedy approved plan, thereafter formally enacted ordinance. later issued memorandum opinion sustained valid Act. Appeals reversed, holding had erred in evaluating only under constitutional standards without also applying teaching East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 636, 96 1083, 47 296, held that, absent exceptional circumstances, judicially imposed reapportionment plans should use districts. Held : judgment is reversed case remanded. Pp. 539-547, 547-549. 551 F.2d 1043, Mr. ustice WHITE, joined by Justice STEWART, concluded: 1 1. Federal courts, special must employ when they impose remedial plans. That standard, however, more stringent than standard applicable accomplished legislature. Here, after invalidated election scheme Charter, discharged duty devise substitute enacting eight/three ordinance, reviewed legislatively despite voting seats. 539-543. 2. was properly considered it principles devised 543-546. 2 (a) No reason not can found provisions Texas law specify charter amended people did purport amend Charter but exercise powers provision been unconstitutional. P. 544. 3 (b) School, Bd., supra, does support conclusion presented viewed judicial therefore subject level scrutiny required Constitution, rather legislative. In reaching are preferred, emphasized bodies submitted reapportion themselves could legally do so federal because state legislation providing them with such disapproved § 5 Voting Rights Act 1965. On facts instant case, unlike situation validly met responsibility replacing invalid apportionment one withstand scrutiny. 545-546. 4 3. Though has urged 1965, became while pending on appeal, barred effectuation challenged clearance mandated 5, issue dealt appropriately court remand. 546-547. POWELL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, agreeing "legislative plan" purposes review, concluded controlled Burns Richardson, 384 73, 86 1286, 16 376. By analogy reasoning legislative, even if no power apportion itself, amendment being necessary end. Under rule whereby "a State's freedom choice substitutes . restricted beyond clear commands Equal Protection Clause," proposed local regarded "legislative" if, Court's examination suggests lacks authority itself. To extent implies anything further about principle established Burns, latter control. 6 Joseph G. Werner, petitioners. 7 James A. Johnston, Jr., respondents. 8 Peter Buscemi, Washington, D. C., pro hac vice, United States, amicus curiae, leave Court. 9 WHITE announced delivered STEWART joined. 10 This involves recurring distinguishing between reapportionments bodies. 11 * 1971 respondents, filed suit States Northern city's body, They sought effect injunction requiring councilmen complaint dismissed failure claim, Fifth Circuit disagreed Lipscomb Jonsson, 459 335 (1972). 12 January 17, 1975, certifying plaintiff class consisting all citizens Dallas1 following elections strength citizens.2 App. 29. 13 20, stated intended at-large. 24, 1975. conducted hearing "to determine constitutionality new Dallas." Ibid. oral February 8, guidelines acceptable written near future. Two days later, promised March 25, containing findings fact conclusions again sustaining 399 F.Supp. 782 (1975).3 14 reversed. 1043 (1977). It actions 296 (1976), considerations existed justified departure preference remanded instructions require itself into appropriate number districts.4 We granted certiorari, 434 1008, 716, 54 750 (1978), reverse grounds misapprehended Eas predecessors. II 15 repeatedly redistricting reapportioning task courts make every effort pre-empt. Connor Finch, 431 407, 414-415, 97 1828, 1833-1834, 52 465 (1977); Chapman Meier, 420 1, 27, 95 751, 42 766 (1975); Gaffney Cummings, 412 735, 749, 93 2321, 2329, 37 298 (1973); 84-85, 1292-1293, 376 (1966). When declares existing unconstitutional, therefore, appropriate, whenever practicable, afford reasonable legislature meet requirements adopting measure order own plan. forthcoming, will governing unless it, too, violate Constitution. "[A] state's either whole or part, Clause." Id., 85, S.Ct., 1293. Legislative their tasks courts; those responsibilities respond, imminence makes impractical so, becomes "unwelcome obligation," U.S., 415, 1833, action. discharging duty, district "will stricter ." 414, 1833. Among other requirements, court-drawn prefer over multimember districts, persuasive justification contrary. Johnson, 402 690, 692, 91 1760, 1762, 29 268 (1971). have reaffirmed principle. Williams, 404 549, 551, 92 656, 658, 30 704 (1972); Mahan Howell, 410 315, 333, 979, 989, 35 320 18, 761; 639, 1085. 17 requirement plans, reflects recognition "the practice districting contribute voter confusion, representatives remote constituents, tend submerge electoral minorities over-represent majorities 1834. See 15-16, 760-761. Despite these dangers, declined hold per se See, example, Whitcomb Chavis, 403 124, 1858, 363 (1971); Fortson Dorsey, 379 433, 85 498, 401 (1965); supra; 15, 760. A applied reapportionments, court, "lacking political authoritativeness bring task," act "circumspectly, manner 'free fr m any taint arbitrariness discrimination.' " 1834, quoting Roman Sincock, 377 695, 710, 84 1449, 1458, 620 (1964).5 18 foregoing principles, worked out course reconciling Constitution goals policy, useful serve decide many cases. But, true application always immediately obvious. Furthermore, distinctive impact amended, 89 Stat. 404, U.S.C. 1973c (1970 ed., Supp. V), upon observed. Plans 5,6 provision, State subdivision may "enact seek administer" "different" qualification procedure respect obtaining Columbia change "does purpose denying abridging right account race color" submitting Attorney General affording him object thereto. State, purportedly adopted response invalidation prior "effective law," 412, 1832; Waller, 421 200, 44 486 (1975), until received 5. Neither, obtained, address measure. supra. Pending submission clearance, processes completely frustrated, times necessarily drawn process implement III 19 Hence, insofar concerned, mandating elections, free expe ted matter found, members. Noting failed [its reapportionment] task, fall courts" declaring "hastily conceived merely litigation," F.Supp., 797, proceeded declare Although there some indications striving satisfy rules seems us balance, Court, observes brief, plan.7 20 disagreement respect. observed "[t]he City's relief, court's decision unconstitutional." F.2d, 1045. noted [was] Council." 1046. 21 Neither disturb ruling constitutional. did, insist where put devising view record disclose presence circumstances warrant rule. clearly error convincing why entitled consider As we see presented. 22 suggested because, Art. XI, statutory law, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. 1170 (Vernon 1978), cannot people. But different view. long remained intact, once and, effect, null void, 800; Tr. Oral Arg. 6. reapportioned means purporting Dallas' body. disagree respect, position overturn acceptance declaration unconstitutionality.8 23 Marshall instructed police jury school boards file both arrangement adopted. approving "when fashioning supplant concededly legislation, preferred unusual circumstances." conclusion, furthermore, 638 n. 6, 637 2, 1085 1084 mere equivalent performed accordance community question. 24 Even markedly method constitutionally defective "gave perform plan." 792. promptly took advantage "that majority pass [enacting individuals, at-large]." 188. accepting retained jurisdiction. 10, promised, incorporating 189. subsequently, specifically [the Dallas] constitutional] members." survive regarding subjecting Constitution.9 25 Finally, affirmed appeal neither nor administer November 1972, securing called section. relied 5's becoming Texas, effective secured approval. same said 1976. 3, 26 think inappropriate, issue. Respondents may, course, sustain below employed Appeals; preliminary question whether open cross-petition, submission, expand respondents' favor, alter nature Appeals. New York Telephone Co., 159, 166 364, 369 event, obligated here, particularly deal way another—apparently product reach referendum remand, deem questions. 27 proceedings. 28 So ordered. whom REHNQUIST join, concurring part judgment. I agree WHITE's review court. my view, his casts doubt 31 reads establishing suggesting legal Ante, 545. Because ordinarily itself—a end—Mr. constrained assume imbued struck down Charter. Aside aspect fully briefed argued, assumption unnecessary. 32 Hawaii Legislature purpose. Nevertheless, treated submit voters parity reasoning, implemented order, 782, 798 (N.D.Tex.1975), just legislature's ultimately outcome process, 98, 1299. 33 essential point th exercised judgment, reflecting policy choices people, directive 1293, deference judgments remains force our 34 Thus, statement stands proposition appears direct conflict Burns. brief curiam cite read turning peculiar facts. litigation Carroll, statute enabling juries employing elections. impermissible voters. determination meant specific board unlawful effects. tainted followed normal presumption legitimacy afforded balances reflected indulged. Having determined basis explore difficult questions concerning absence consideration below. 36 Opinion POWELL join. write separately emphasize today concluding form government black citizens. While multi-member "used invidiously cancel minimize groups," White Regester, 755, 765, 2332, 2339, 314 (1973), never occasion analogue highly amorphous theory municipal governments. Since petitioners preserve need relevant distinctions area government. possibility foreclosed today's decision. 38 MARSHALL, BRENNAN STEVENS dissenting. 39 majority's question, since analysis past decisions Part opinion. agree, distinguishable (1976). conclude ordered here evaluated common remedies 40 parish (county) initially white resident who claimed population disparities among wards denied equal jury, parish. Following finding unconstitutionality, years (after 1970 census), direction, resubmitted jury. Respondent intervened, arguing dilute violation Fourteenth Fifteenth Amendments. accepted were 41 ground Appeals, abused equitable discretion division wards: "We frequently 43 plain developed cases applicable. equally treat jury's "legislatively enacted" strictures evaluation court-devised 1833-34, Indeed, rejecting argument (appearing curiae ) preclearance expressly "did itself," though "court-ordered pla[n] resulting jurisdiction adversary proceedings." 638-639, There meaningful distinction Carroll. Like pursuant procedures first Nor state-derived "enacted" approval terms popular referendum. Tex.Const., 5; Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., 1978). unquestionably comply plan; indeed, responding acting unlawfully unilaterally 800 (N.D.Tex.1975). 45 devis d usual evidenced told group citizens, wished present Council's deliberations alternative, "wrong forum" go 43-44. less party litigant invitation aid appeared regard unique circumstances. ante, 543 (opinion J.). 46 purported 545 simply case. formal, binding enactment expression "intention." bother through formality supposedly full indicated violations; time implementation moreover, insufficient structure Council. apportionment, believe contemplated responsibility—and thereby avoid plans—by making enactments.1 If before regarded, depart implications unanimous rendered two Terms ago. four recognized presumptively disfavored. 48 apparent represents proper nonetheless troubling. Where very underlying dilution minority effects votin particular community, inappropriate respond same. 49 refrained se, favor strong one. e. g., 16-19, (1975). explained virtue "tend overrepresent majorities." 1834; accord, 158-159, 1877 16, 50 essentially undisputed (the Dallas) "submerged" minority, Dallas. original solely malapportionment "racial dilution" challenge raised objection remedy. Multimember disfavored "tendency" potential create dilution, fortiori cure proved "multi-member elements population." 439, 501, (1965).2 51 Based proof diluting Dallas—and history de jure discrimination contributing it—the replicated offending feature burden respondents prove perpetuates contrary logic sense. equity result. For reasons, correctly dissent. Several plaintiffs, interrogatories. Mexican-Americans subsequently attempted intervene. permitted several participate Petitioners here. During pendency electorate 1976, thus general citywide desired. stayed Appeals' disposition 1329, numerous court-ordered involved schemes which, departed one-person, one-vote Reynolds Sims, 533, 1362, 506 (1964), progeny. persuaded, induced express designed violations compel similar court-imposed discrimination. ," source seeking eliminate 1834 765-770, 2339-2341, (1973). "A decree within Section Act." 691, 1762 announcement, judge remarked: "I'm saying it's best It's drawn. plan-drawing business. That's duty." Record 195. statutory, constitutional, prohibition unable contention exceeded authority. Home Rule citie legislature, agency, utterly powerless instances next scheduled too permit unwilling adopt interpretation indication whatsoever courts. light disposition, petitioners' claim alleged representation desirability permitting constitute justifying Brother (1966), mechanism changes made freeze apportionments right. 238 468, 472 (Haw.1965). contrast, lawful available modifying Charter: drafting proposal completed election, temporary, 540 552, 4, directing designated dilutive strength, awaiting unconstitutionality. Graves Barnes, 343 (W.D.Tex.1972) (three-judge court).

Category: 1