Document: 456 U.S. 37 102 S.Ct. 1518 71 L.Ed.2d 725 Chester R. UPHAM, Jr. and Eric Cliffordv.A. M. SEAMON et al. No. 81-1724. April 1, 1982. PER CURIAM. 1 After the 1980 census, Texas' congressional delegation increased from 24 to 27 members. A reapportionment plan, Senate Bill (SB1), was enacted on August 14, 1981, then submitted Attorney General for preclearance. While it pending before him, suit filed in Federal District Court Eastern of Texas challenging constitutionality SB1 its validity under § 2 Voting Rights Act 1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973. three-judge court empaneled, held a hearing, delayed any further action until after acted. On January 29, 1982, entered an objection SB1. Specifically, he objected lines drawn two contiguous districts south Texas, Districts 15 27.1 He stated that State "has satisfied burden demonstrating plan is nondiscriminatory purpose effect" with respect other 25 districts. In face this objection, which made unenforceable, obvious unconstitutionality prior apportionment plan,2 ordered parties provide written submissions along maps, plats, data aid reaching court-ordered plan. hearing February 9. The proceeded resolve General's 27. 536 F.Supp. 931. All court's except those Dallas County, were identical devised own part Court's judgment appeal here. stay expedited consideration are requested. Judge Sam Johnson Justice wrote separately, but agreed SB1's County could not be implemented.3 alone determined unconstitutional. Johnson's view, since nullity, entire had must conform 5, 1973c, standards, including "no retrogression rule" Beer v. United States, 425 130, 96 1357, 47 629 (1976). However, thought respects standards applicable plans stricter than observed by legislature: population equality racial fairness. Judicial application no standard, his limited purely numerical factors; unlike legislature, cannot consider "innumerable political factors may affect minority group's access process." F.Supp., at 948. Although defer legislative judgments much possible, forbidden do so when would meet special fairness plans. 3 treatment failed test Under SB1, strength have gone 29.1 percent 12.1 percent. Apparently, votes been shifted 24, 37.4 63.8 reasoned change reduce effectiveness 5 substantially guarantee "safe" seat 24. This "would result severe area." Id., 957, n. 39. specifically recognized formulated response interests expressed voters creating seat. did hold unconstitutional, nor criticize inconsistent applied redistricting. court, however, not, same legislature.4 therefore, redrew boundaries adjoining Districts, 26. 31.87 45.7 4 Appellants, who Republican Party officials contend simply substituted preferences state legislature Wise Lipscomb, 437 535, 98 2493, 57 411 (1978); McDaniel Sanchez, 452 101 2224, 68 724 (1981); White Weiser, 412 783, 93 2348, 335 (1973).5 They argue absence General, finding constitutional or statutory violation districts, reflect, even circumstances order required effect interim plan.6 We agree and, summarily reverse. relevant principles govern federal district courts cases well established: 6 "From beginning, we 'reapportionment primarily matter determination, judicial relief becomes appropriate only fails reapportion according requisites timely fashion having adequate opportunity so.' adhered view legislatures 'primary jurisdiction' over reapportionment. . Just context reapportionment, should follow policies State, provisions proposed whenever adherence policy does detract requirements Constitution, similarly honor fashioning choosing among plans, pre-empt task 'intrude upon more necessary.' " U.S., 794-795, S.Ct., 2354 (citations omitted). 7 Weiser itself presents good example such intrusion necessary. there erred when, between possible choose most closely approximated state-proposed limits deference policy, held, substantive subject. 797, 2355. 8 reached similar conclusion Whitcomb Chavis, 403 124, 160-161, 91 1858, 1877-1878, 29 363 (1971), rejected choices necessary specific violations involved. Indeed, our decision directly conflicts lower case. indicated all multimember absent Ibid. despite fact previously "when forced single-member preferable large multi-member general matter." Connor Johnson, 402 690, 692, 1760, 1762, 268 (1971). See also Chapman Meier, 420 19, 95 751, 762, 766 (1975) (indicating should, some circumstances, to, respect, districting). 9 It true has subject developed legislature. supra, 540, 2497; Finch, 431 407, 414, 97 1828, 1833, 52 465 (1977). standard applies, remedies nature scope violation: "The remedial powers equity task, they unlimited." 161, 1761. never said entry grants authority disregard aspects General.7 There reasons rejecting parts State's proposal, something actions. Those come into play unless remedy required; whether basis legal submission. 10 Whenever faced entering will allow elections go forward problem "reconciling Constitution goals policy." 1833. An reconciliation these can if modifications cure defect. Thus, offended either Act, free, certainly required, program Legislature. 11 erred, t necessarily serve governing forthcoming elections. filing date candidates, initially postponed Court, now gone. adjusted dates primary scheduled May held. although disagrees urges election process interrupted new schedule adopted, County. urged because replacement 1983, injury appellants, any, irreparable. 12 authorized Courts permit pursuant measure up requirements, requirements. See, e.g., Bullock 404 1065, 92 750, 30 752 (1972); 396 1055, 90 748, 757 (1970). Necessity motivating factor situations. 13 Because familiar laws practical bear rescheduled, vacate remand case proceedings. Waller, 421 656, 2003, 44 486 (1975); Wesberry Sanders, 376 4, 84 526, 528, 481 (1964). Having error leave first instance determine modify reschedule or, spite erroneous refusal adopt accordance present schedule. 14 shall issue forthwith. So ordered. His went 23, refused request severed addressed portion (but see 7, infra). existing created changes past years extreme variations unconstitutional one-man, one-vote rule. Parker dissented order—he followed passage opinion reads follows: "This recognizes certain group members desire 'safe' numerous factors, substantial battling, Legislature decided configurations S.B.1 liberty engage considerations. nonretrogressive privilege. evaluate without questions regarding ability separate groups form coalitions concerns. considerations valid justify increasing swing-vote influence one expense enjoyed neighboring district. determines, that, trade-off position minorities their effective exercise electoral franchise." Appellants supported Texas. agrees them merits supports summary reversal decision, asks delay 1982 words, challenges contends too disruptive expensive attempt alter point. propose arguments. First, law invalid provision severable. Therefore, invalidate Second, "stricter standards" apply use beyond de minimis amount. particular, standard" already precleared General. light disposition case, need reach took declining grant preclearance find objectionable: "Since acting stead believe effectuate extent Legislature's concerns raised letters. make normally session." App. Juris. Statement F-3 (letter Wm. Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Secretary State). Solicitor takes slightly different position. question what weight give partially plenary Court.

Category: 1