Document: 379 U.S. 433 85 S.Ct. 498 13 L.Ed.2d 401 Ben W. FORTSON, Jr., Secretary of State the Georgia, Appellant,v.James DORSEY et al. No. 178. Argued Dec. 10, 1964. Decided Jan. 18, 1965. Paul Rodgers, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant. Edwin F. Hunt, appellees. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Georgia's 1962 Senatorial Reapportionment Act1 apportions 54 seats Georgia Senate among State's 159 counties. The senatorial districts created by Act are drawn, so far as possible, along existing county lines. Thirty-three made up from one to eight counties each,2 and voters in these elect their senators a district-wide vote. remaining 21 allotted groups two seven most populous counties, but do not senator vote; instead they join with other electing all county's county-wide 2 appellees, registered brought this action District Court Northern against local election officials seeking decree that requirement voting multi-district violates Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge court granted appellees' motion summary judgment, stating 'The statute causes clear difference treatment accorded each classes districts. It is same law applied differently different persons. select own class In not. They must others selecting group choice may be nullified what desire. This discrimination between classes. * here nothing more than classification on basis homesite, end some allowed representatives while an invidious tested any standard.' 228 F.Supp. 259, 263. We noted probable jurisdiction, 810, 53. reverse. 3 Only last Term, our Reynolds v. Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 12 506, decided after decision below, we rejected notion equal protection necessarily requires formation single-member discussing impact bicameralism equal-protection standards, said, 'One body could composed have at least multimember districts.' U.S., 577, S.Ct., 1389. (Emphasis supplied.) Again, holding might legitimately desire maintain integrity various political subdivisions, such said: 'Single-member rule State, another achieve flexibility creating or floterial Whatever means accomplishment, overriding objective substantial equality population districts, vote citizen approximately weight State.' 579, 1390. 4 contended there 'substantial population' argument focused solely upon question whether multidistrict results denying residents therein 'approximately of' resident constituencies. Contrary Court, cannot say it does. There clearly no mathematical disparity. Fulton County, largest constituency, has nearly times larger single-district constituency reason elects senators. Every County voter, therefore, represent his interests legislature. But appellees assert scheme defective because count-wide could, matter mathematics, result nullification unanimous district, thereby thrusting them whom district had voted. only highly hypothetical assertion3 that, event, ignores practical realities representation multi-member constituency. accurate treat representative within wherein he resides. uses merely residence candidates, representation. Each district's since tenure depends electorate vigilant serve people county, those home district; thus fact senator. If voter when votes him Senate, exact equivalent singlemember 5 reversing should emphasize claim below was based alleged infirmity attaches its face. Agreeing contention feature per se bad, entered judgment. presented context, understood instances under circumstances system will comport dictates Clause. well designedly otherwise, apportionment scheme, particular case, would operate minimize cancel out strength racial elements population. When demonstrated time enough consider still passes constitutional muster. question, however, record before us. true asserted short paragraph brief method resorted order minorities urban never seriously pressed point offered proof support it, did merits, oral counsel stressed rely argument. does contain substantiation bald assertion brief. Since, circumstances, issue 'not been formulated bring into focus, evidence appraised decide bearing wholly separate question.' Wright Rockefeller, 376 52, 58, 603, 606, 11 512. 6 Reversed. 7 HARLAN, concurring. 8 Under compulsion Term's reapportionment decisions I judgment reservation. language today's opinion, unnecessary Court's resolution taken mean constitutionality state legislative apportionments must, analysis, always judged terms simple arithmetic. 9 As embarks difficult business putting flesh bones companion June, expressly reserve case which squarely presents issue, principles announced require sterile approach concept field. 10 DOUGLAS, dissenting. Georgia—whose hierarchy long constructed county-unit* basis—has important change. Constitution amended read: shall consist members. General Assembly authority create, rearrange change provide Senators several embraced manner deem advisable.' (Italics added.) Art. III, § II, part. I. 'senatorial district' unit provides relevant part: 14 'Each Senator elected except consisting less located.' 15 Thus districts' put classifications: first, comprising counties; second, county. 'equal protection' problem Amendment arises electors first choose senators, electros second share agree Court: '* treated not.' 16 County: 17 34 containing 82,195 voters. 18 35 82,888 19 36 79,023 20 37 78,540 38 78,953 22 39 79,713 23 40 74,834 24 three De Kalb 25 41 75,117 26 42 95,032 27 43 86,633 28 out, even if candidate obtained defeated foreign vote, course were running group. idea how weighted produce prejudice race-wise, religion-wise, politics-wise. allow candidates chosen my view 'invidious discrimination'—the test unequal Baker Carr, 369 186, 244, 82 691, 724, 663. assumed settled Gray Sanders, 372 368, 379, 83 801, 808, 821, where 'Once geographical designated, who participate vote—whatever race, whatever sex, occupation, income, wherever unit. required Amendment.' Ga.Laws, Sept.-Oct. 1962, Extra. Sess., pp. 7—31; Ga.Code Ann. 47—102 (Cum.Supp.1963). Section 9, provision here, pertinent part that: District, Districts wihich Shortly enactment statute, prior general elections, challenged validity above Constitution. held exception unconstitutional then-existing Finch Gray, 96441 (Fulton Super.Ct., Oct. 30, 1962). permanent injunction requiring elections DeKalb Counties only. Appeal withdrawn. Legislature authorized submission amendment ratifying multi-districtvoting statute. (The ratified. See Ga.Const. I; 1401 (Cum.Supp.1963).) stated concerning proposed amendment: 'It observed Paragraph (b) said Constitution, submitted ratify thereunder. Amendment, course, prospective become ratified coming election. effect ratification aforesaid now determination. See, subject: Walker Wilcox Co., 95 Apps. 185 (97 S.E.2d 583); Hammond Clark, 136 Ga. 313 (71 S.E. 479, L.R.A.,N.S., 77); Bailey Housing Authority City Bainbridge, 214 790 (107 812); Grayson-Robinson Stores, Inc. Oneida, Ltd., 209 613 (75 161); Mercer L.Rev. 194, 195; Am.Juris., page 832, section 151. importance simply light sheds intention enacting statute.' raised cited declared revived subsequent urged here. Of us; concerns federal argued. These 33 embrace 152 single 31 comprised each. Appellees take example 34, County's total 556,326 say, every voted 18% six (i.e., 85,000 474,131 county) outvote First all, demonstration likely composition vis-a -vis rest (In fact, both Counties—wherein reside conducted rather basis. note 1, supra.) apart this, mathematics misleading, 18%, 85,000, also 389,131 presumably Assuming additional split almost evenly 34—the 'favorable' assumption smallest possible percentage can 34—there 280,000 34th about 59% remaining, out-of-district cry figure calculated And, if, odd chance, outside selection voters, misleading. For eventuality, consists something 170,000 close 100%—not 18%—of cast in-district latter. Our read, resting misleading aspects calculations. South Peters, 339 276, 70 641, 94 L.Ed. 834.

Category: 1