Document: 412 U.S. 783 93 S.Ct. 2348 37 L.Ed.2d 335 Mark WHITE, Jr., Etc., Appellant,v.Dan WEISER et al. No. 71-1623. Argued Feb. 26, 1973. Decided June 18, Syllabus Texas enacted Senate Bill One (S.B. 1) providing for congressional redistricting. The State was divided into 24 districts, with an average deviation from the ideal district of .745%, and a maximum 2.43% above 1.7% below ideal. Appellees alleged that reapportionment violated their constitutional rights under Art. 1, § 2, submitted Plan B, which although cutting across more county lines, generally followed lines S.B. 1. B had total .149%. Shortly before three-judge court hearing, appellees submitted, alternatively, C. That Scheme, .284%, substantially disregarded configuration districts in using population as only consideration. District Court found 1 unconstitutional ordered adoption C, being compact continguous than other plans. Held: Although percentage deviations are smaller those invalidated Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 526, 89 1225, 22 519, Wells Rockefeller, 542, 1234, 535, they were not 'unavoidable' mathematically equal reasonably possible. argument variances justified if necessarily result State's attempt to avoid fragmenting political subdivisions by drawing along existing subdivision is legally acceptable. Kirkpatrick, supra, U.S., at 533-534, S.Ct., 1230-1231, Pp. 790—791. 2. Though boundaries way minimizes number contests between present incumbents does itself establish invidiousness, Burns Richardson, 384 73, n. 16, 86 1286, 1295, 16 376, it necessary decide whether such state interest will justify since serves this purpose well less variance. 791-792. 3. Population do invidiously devalue individual's vote some point or level size, especially noticeable substantial populations. 792-793. 4. greater extent while eliminating variances, adhered districting preferences legislature, has 'primary jurisdiction' over legislative reapportionment. 793-797. Affirmed part, reversed remanded. Charles L. Black, New Haven, Conn., appellant. Lawrence Fischman, Dallas, Tex., appellees. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. This case concerns Texas. 2 On 17, 1971, Governor signed law 1), Tex.Acts, 62d Leg., 1st Called Sess., c. 12, p. 38, redistricting State. ensuing decennium.1 Based upon 1970 census figures, absolute equality among would mean 466,530 each district. created varied high 477,856 13th low 458,581 15th District. exceeded 1.7%. difference two 19,275 persons, 4.13%. ratio 1.04 all .745% 3,421 persons.2 3 October 19, appellees, residents 6th, 13th, 16th, 19th filed suit United States Northern against appellant, Secretary chief election officer seats embodied Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment.3 They requested injunction use order requiring new apportionment plan complaint, at-large elections. appended appellees' original came be called pattern However, adjusted where so achieve districts. varying 466,930 466,234, largest smallest 696 persons. 12 .086% Four .063%, possible, equality, cut 18 did 1.4 4 A convened. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284. January 10, 1972, several days prior scheduled hearing case, amended complaint suggesting alternative plan, unlike Instead, authors frankly admitted found, C represented attain lower without regard any consideration population. 467,173 465,855 low, 1,318 overpopulated .139%, underpopulated .145%, .284%. 14 eight B.5 5 21, heard received evidence various depositions. next day, announced its decision. Relying Court's decision 519 (1969), declared enjoined appellant 'conducting permitting primary general elections based established 1.' 'the Texas.'6 Noting entered 'without prejudice executive branches proceed constitutionally permissible regular session Legislature,' retained jurisdiction 'for purposes considering might adopted Legislature until on Twentieth Decennial Census conducted 1980.'7 6 Court, application granted stay 404 1065, 92 750, 30 775 (1972). 1972 therefore We noted probable appeal. 409 947, 287, 34 217 7 * command I. representatives chosen 'by People States' elucidated Wesberry Sanders, 376 84 11 481 (1964), 527-528, 1227, permit 'are unavoidable despite good-faith effort justification shown.' Id., 531, 1229.8 See also 546, 1237, 535 (1969). statutes federal having 5.97% 13.1%, respectively. In both cases, we concluded demonstrate sufficiently justified. 8 now us Wells, but agree that, standards 'unavoidable,' Both Plans much, really dispute it.9 Also, 'we find acceptable county, municipal, boundaries.' 1230. 9 asserts nevertheless represent efforts promote 'constituency-representative relations,'10 policy aimed maintaining relationships incumbent congressmen constituents preserving seniority members delegation have achieved House Representatives. disparage interest. have, context reapportionment, said fact 'district may been drawn invidiousness.' (1966). Cf. Gaffney Cummings, 735, 752, 2321, 2331, 298. But need sufficient issue here, admittedly adhering closely equality.11 variations, therefore, asserted goal, correct rejecting it.12 10 Appellant straightforwardly argues should modified require 'small' involved urged, absent proof invidiousness violate It clear, however, import invidious devaluation failure accord him fair effective representation. concedes locate line differently Wells. Keeping mind intertwined freighted strictly local interests compared latter, relatively enormous, variation representing almost 5,000 people, inclined disturb particularly light Mahan Howell, 410 315, 979, 35 320 (1973), decided earlier Term, reiterated Wesberry, cases continue govern reapportionments, holding rigor rule inappropriate reapportionments challenged Equal Amendment. II properly rejected there remains question correctly chose implement latter.13 basic configurations necessary, Each contained same counties equivalent 1.14 hand, entirely considerations made no adhere 1.15 plans After deciding unacceptable, implementation announcing decision, only: 'Plan solely significantly contiguous either B. . considered concludes best effectuates principle 'one man, one vote' enunciated Supreme Court.' 13 even struck down selected rather defend selection exercise remedial discretion doing argue proposed frequently urged From beginning, recognized 'reapportionment primarily matter determination, judicial relief becomes appropriate when legislature fails reapportion according requisites timely fashion after adequate opportunity so.' Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 586, 1362, 1394, 506 (1964). also, id., 584, 586-587, 1393, 1394-1395; 588-589, 1395-1396 (opinion Stewart, J.). view legislatures Maryland Committee Fair Representation Tawes, 656, 676, 1429, 1440, 595 (1964); Davis Mann, 678, 693, 1441, 1449, 609 Roman Sincock, 695, 709-710, 711-712, 1457-1458, 1458-1459, 620 84-85, 1292-1293; Ely Klahr, 403 108, 114, 91 1803, 1807, 29 352 (1971); Whitcomb Chavis, 124, 160-161, 1858, 1877-1878, 363 Sixty-seventh Minnesota Beens, 406 187, 195-201, 1477, 1483-1486, 32 (1972); 327, 986. 15 Just court, follow policies State, expressed statutory provisions whenever adherence detract requirements Federal Constitution, hold similarly honor fashioning choosing plans, pre-empt task nor 'intrude necessary.' 160, 1878. Here, clear desires attempting duly statute Texas, locations elected houses Legislature. As often noted, complicated process. Districting inevitably sharp impact decisions must charged task. 753, 2331. Here pursuit what deemed important interests. Its unnecessarily put aside course remedy held impermissible variations 17 parties concede, variances. Indeed, goal Despite existence which, conceded parties, ignored constructed basis considerations. erred choice. Given alternatives, imposed very different impact, implemented most clearly approximated satisfying requirements. 'significantly contiguous' feature can compact, override whatever goals and, derivatively, 'The powers equity task, unlimited. broadly brushing solid equitable grounds 161, If good reason adopting failed it. Of course, defer consistent norms vulnerable legal challenge. not, name policy, refrain remedies fully redress violations adjudicated rectified. suggest preserve constituencies undesirable. repeat reapportionment: 1295. 2331; Taylor McKeithen, 407 191, 1980, 648 And note themselves defended goals, deviations.16 19 judgment invalidating affirmed. is, remanded further proceedings opinion. 20 ordered. 21 Judgment affirmed part POWELL, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, concurring. 23 Had I member decided, thought Constitution-a vital living charter nearly centuries because wise flexibility key provisions-could read mathematical exactitude Moreover, dissenting opinions Justices Harlan* White concurring Fortas demonstrated required majority displayed serious misunderstanding practicalities reapportioning processes. Nothing occurred reflect adversely soundness, it, perceptions. recent 298, Regester, 755, 2332, 314, strengthen scheme-state congressional-to slide-rule precision. These allowed modest theoretical 'exactitude' recognition impracticality applying deference legitimate However be, virtually indistinguishable unless decides reconsider Accordingly, join 25 MARSHALL, part. 26 While Part opinion, wherein reverses insofar determination rests comes closer achieving 'precise equality,' see 530-531, 1228-1229, Whatever merits legislature's merely incumbents,' (1966), another determined particular comport requirement must, drafting own give apparent controlling powers. my process area-as area-should fastidiously neutral objective one, free guided strict accuracy representative apportionment. gave ample responsibility'* area added Texas.' Nevertheless, precision selecting choice reversed. Prior passage twice defeated bills, passed House, follows: Absolute Variance % Ideal 461,870 -4,651 1.00 466,836 + 306 .07 465,221 - 1,309 .28 463,142 3,388 .73 465,093 1,437 .31 467,913 1,383 .30 461,704 4,826 1.03 461,216 5,314 467,483 953 .20 465,493 1,037 .22 468,148 1,618 .35 465,671 859 .18 1,326 2.43 467,839 7,949 1.70 477,614 1,084 2.38 467,912 1,382 462,062 4,468 .96 477,459 10,929 2.34 467,942 1,412 466,656 126 .03 461,448 5,082 1.09 466,248 282 .06 465,315 1,216 .26 At subsequent pretrial conference, Amendment claims eliminated. resulted following districting: 466,545 466,565 466,266 264 466,234 296 466,620 90 466,285 245 466,336 194 466,704 174 466,678 148 466,313 466,258 272 400 466,663 133 466,437 466,359 171 466,432 98 466,520 466,649 119 466,514 466,753 223 466,707 177 466,424 106 466,875 345 districts: 465,986 544 466,817 287 466,835 305 467,108 578 467,023 493 466,303 227 466,569 39 466,926 396 465,941 589 466,340 190 466,154 466,654 124 466,167 675 entire discussion reasons 'Defendant Plaintiffs intervening plaintiffs, leave intervene Van Henry Archer, Chairman Bexar County Republican Party, others. intervenors, suggested complaint-in-intervention pressed here. extending impending February 7, filing date candidates 'in event known (the District) include reapportionment.' refused call special legislature. Preisler 'reject(ed) Missouri's fixed numerical variance small enough de minimis satisfy 'as practicable' standard.' 530, 1228. concluded, 'Unless shown (good-faith) effort, variance, how small.' 1229. bill deviations. 2.5% bills ultimately Senate, indeed existence, indicates possible practicable construct scheme 'Appellant earnestly submits term relations' accurate term; hard why who concerned about representation stigmatize mere euphemism brings representational relationship .. (The assumptions seem Congressman like his job, constituency Congressman, care he continues not-and possibly learn know serve better by, young mathematician Dallas.) Under name, motive proper, burden defense fell facts herein.' Brief 72. appears fostered contends passing took account projected shifts Remembering effect least years five elections, consider changes devising plan. '(w)here these predicted degree accuracy, them.' 1231. were, careful note: 'By open avenue subterfuge. Findings trends thoroughly documented applied throughout systematic, ad hoc, manner.' Ibid. conclude Texas' falls far short standard. record barren, exception scattered vague assertions deposition testimony, documentation firm relied upon. There suggestion preceded fill Second seat. urge tell resolved dispute. plaintiffs-intervenors possibly, Only appear seriously presented Appellees, graphic manner, could done disposed make ..' 25. Appellees' explained 'That desired enact consonant mandate Article practicable, taking 'social,' 'cultural,' 'economic' 'other factors' including preservation congressman, similar set forth Exhibit annexed hereto herewith incorporated reference though length herein. hereinafter referred C." sought lines. cuts achieves Because fracture contend unacceptable Stewart joined Harlan's See, e.g., 1292-1293,

Category: 1