KILGARLIN et al. v. HILL, SECRETARY OF STATE OF TEXAS, et al.
No. 235.
Decided February 20, 1967.
William E. Wright for appellants.
Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, and Mary K. Wall, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
Per Curiam.
Following judicial, invalidation of the constitutional and statutory provisions governing the. apportionment of the Texas State Legislature, the State Legislature reapportioned both the House and the Senate. Appellants promptly challenged on various grounds the constitutionality of H. B. 195 which reapportioned the House of Representatives in a combination of single-member, multi-member and floterial districts. The District Court sustained all aspects of the plan , except those provisions respecting the counties included in 11 floterial districts, 252 F. Supp. 404, which were found violative of the equality principles announced in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533. The court did, however, over appellants’ objections, permit the 1966 election to proceed under H. B. 195 with a proviso to the effect that if the legislature did not adopt corrective legislation by August 1, 1967, the counties in the floterial districts would be reconstituted as multi-member districts and all the representatives assigned to those counties would be. elected at. large.
We affirm the District Court’s action in permitting the 1966 election to proceed under H. B. 195 although constitutionally infirm in certain respects. In- the particular circumstances of this case there is ample precedent for the court’s action. See Drum v. Seawell, 383 U. S. 831; Toombs v. Fortson, 384 U. S. 210. We also affirm the court’s judgment insofar as it held that appellants had not proved their allegations that H. B. 195 Was a racial or political gerrymander violating the Fourteenth Amendment, that it unconstitutionally deprived Negroes of their franchise and that because of its utilization of single-member, multi-member, and floterial districts it was an unconstitutional "crazy quilt.”
In another respect, however, the District Court committed reversible error. Appellants alleged that in'addition to the inequalities inherent in the floterial districts, H. B. 195 also infringed Fourteenth Amendment rights because in the remaining legislative districts of the State there were unacceptable variations from the principle of Reynolds v. Sims that among legislative districts the population per representative should be substantially equal Appellants’ proof showed that in these other districts the population per representative varies from 54,385 to 71,301, or from 14.84%. overrepresented to 11.64% underrepresented. The ratio between the largest and the smallest district is thus 1.31 to 1. The deviation from the average population per representative is greater than 10% in 12 single-member districts, and a total of 55 representatives would be elected from eight multi-member districts in which the population per representative varies from the ideal by more than 6%..
The District Court sustained the constitutionality of H. B. 195 on two grounds. First, it held that appellants had the burden not only of demonstrating the degree of variance from the equality principle but also of “negating] the existence of any state of facts which would sustain the constitutionality of the legislation.” 252 F. Supp. 404, 414. This, the court held, appellants had not done. At. that time, of course, Swann v. Adams, 385 U. S. 440, had not been announced. Under that case it is quite clear that unless satisfactorily justified by the court or by the evidence of record, population variances of the size and significance evident here are sufficient to invalidate an apportionment plan. Without such justification, appellants’ analysis of H. B. 195 made out a sufficiént'case under the Fourteenth Amendment. —
Second, the District Court, not resting exclusively on its burden of proof ruling, found that the deviations from the equal population principle were amply justified here because they resulted from a bona fide attempt to conform to the state policy requiring legislative apportionment plans to respect county boundaries wherever possible, We are doubtful, however, that the deviations evident here are the kind of “minor” variations which Reynolds v. Sims indicated might be justified by local policies counseling the maintenance of established political subdivisions in apportionment plans. 377 U. S. 533, 578-579. But we need not reach that constitutional question, for we are not convinced that the announced policy of the State of Texas necessitated the range of deviations between legislative districts which is evident here. In the first place, Texas policy, as elaborated by the Attorney General and concurred in by the District Court, permits the formation of multi-member and floterial districts and even, where necessary, the violation of county lines in order to surmount undue population variations. In the second place, the District Court did not relate its . declared justification to any specific inequalities among the districts, not demonstrate why. or how respect for the integrity of county lines required the particular deviations called for by H. B. 196. Nor did the. District Court articulate any satisfactory grounds for rejecting at least two other plans presented to the court, which respected county lines but which produced substantially smaller deviations from the principles of Reynolds v. Sims. Similar fault can be found in accepting a general county-line justification for the population deviations that would occur should the present floterial districts be reconstituted ' as multi-member districts. The ratio between the largest reconstituted district and the smallest district created by H. B. 195 would be 1.21 to 1, and seven representatives would be elected from districts overrepresented by 13% or more. Another five representatives would be elected from districts overrepresented by 8% or more.
Appellants also raise specific challenges to the provisions of H. B. 195 with respect to Dallas, Bexar, and Harris Counties. Dallas and Bexar Counties are relatively densely populated multi-member districts. Measured by population alone, each county could support one more representative than is allocated to it under H. B. 195, and thus more nearly approximate the arithmetic ideal. Giving each of them one more representative would not, of course, violate their county lines; and.we cannot be sure, at least on this record and in view of the 150-member limit on the House of Representatives, that Dallas and Bexar Counties must be denied additional representation in order to adhere to county lines in other districts throughout the State. If other districts cannot be re-formed within county lines in such a way as to afford Dallas and Bexar Counties another representative and at the same time to afford the re-formed districts constitutional representation, we would have to meet the question whether the state policy advanced here justifies the seeming underrepresentation in Dallas and Bexar Counties, which is 6.42% and 7.59,% respectively. But on the record that is now before us we do not reach this, issue and believe that the District Court should give further consideration to these counties.
Appellants complain that district 24 in Harris County is assigned only six representatives whereas district 22 in the sanie county with a slightly smaller population is assigned seven representatives. The court found the record to establish that the population in district 22 was growing rapidly as compared with district 24 and would soon justify the extra representative. This factual determination not being challenged here, we accept the ruling of the District Court regarding these districts.
The judgment is reversed in part and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 195a contains House Bill .195. The Senate reapportionment of 1965, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 193a, is not here in issue.
The Attorney General expressed the state policy in a letter to the Speaker of the House, included as Appendix “D” in the opinion below, 252 F. Supp. 404, 455-456.
.May 19, 1965
Honorable Ben Barnes
Speaker of the House
Austin, Texas
Dear Mr. Speaker:
As a result of the analyzing and briefing of Section 26, Article III of the Texas Constitution of 1876 and the recent decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court on the subject of state reapportionment, this office has reached the following legal conclusions.
1. Whenever a single county has sufficient population to be entitled to more than one representative, all the representatives to which it is entitled shall be apportioned, to that county.
2. Multi-representative counties may be apportioned so that the representatives can run at-large within the county or from individual districts within the county or¡ a combination of any of these methods.
3. If a single county does not have sufficient population to entitle it to one representative, such county shall be joined with one or more contiguous counties until the proper population ratio is achieved. The above cited provision of the Texas Constitution requires that counties be kept intact and their boundaries not be violated. ■ ■
4. Should the keeping of counties intact result in a violation of the Supreme Court “one man, one vote” rule, then the county lines must be violated but only to the extent necessary to carry out the mándate of the Supreme Court. In all other instances, county lines must remain intact and multi-county districts or flotorial districts be formed by the joining of complete and contiguous counties. .
The above legal conclusions have been set out as clearly and concisely as possible. These conclusions have been reached by a thorough analysis of the Texas constitutional provisions-as well as recent federal court decisions. Our research has also thoroughly developed the legislative history and legislative interpretation of the legislative sessions immediately prior to and immediately subsequent to the adoption of the constitutional provisions involved.
Yours very truly,
s/Waggoner Carr
Our cases do not foreclose ■ attempts to show that in the particular circumstances of a given case multi-member districts are invidiously discriminatory. See Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73, 88-89. .It has recently been suggested that multi-member districts such as Dallas and Bexar are adequately represented, if not overrepresented.- See Banzh'af, Multi-member Electoral Districts — Do They Violate-the “One Man, One-Vote” Principle, 75 Yale L. J. 1309 (1966).
U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals U.S. Court of International Trade U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces U.S. Court of Military Review U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals U.S. Customs Court U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit U.S. Tax Court Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals U.S. Court for China U.S. Consular Courts U.S. Commerce Court Territorial Supreme Court Territorial Appellate Court Territorial Trial Court Emergency Court of Appeals Supreme Court of the District of Columbia Bankruptcy Court U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction) Alabama Middle U.S. District Court Alabama Northern U.S. District Court Alabama Southern U.S. District Court Alaska U.S. District Court Arizona U.S. District Court Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court Arkansas Western U.S. District Court California Central U.S. District Court California Eastern U.S. District Court California Northern U.S. District Court California Southern U.S. District Court Colorado U.S. District Court Connecticut U.S. District Court Delaware U.S. District Court District Of Columbia U.S. District Court Florida Middle U.S. District Court Florida Northern U.S. District Court Florida Southern U.S. District Court Georgia Middle U.S. District Court Georgia Northern U.S. District Court Georgia Southern U.S. District Court Guam U.S. District Court Hawaii U.S. District Court Idaho U.S. District Court Illinois Central U.S. District Court Illinois Northern U.S. District Court Illinois Southern U.S. District Court Indiana Northern U.S. District Court Indiana Southern U.S. District Court Iowa Northern U.S. District Court Iowa Southern U.S. District Court Kansas U.S. District Court Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court Kentucky Western U.S. District Court Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court Louisiana Western U.S. District Court Maine U.S. District Court Maryland U.S. District Court Massachusetts U.S. District Court Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court Michigan Western U.S. District Court Minnesota U.S. District Court Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court Missouri Western U.S. District Court Montana U.S. District Court Nebraska U.S. District Court Nevada U.S. District Court New Hampshire U.S. District Court New Jersey U.S. District Court New Mexico U.S. District Court New York Eastern U.S. District Court New York Northern U.S. District Court New York Southern U.S. District Court New York Western U.S. District Court North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court North Carolina Western U.S. District Court North Dakota U.S. District Court Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court Ohio Northern U.S. District Court Ohio Southern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court Oregon U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court Puerto Rico U.S. District Court Rhode Island U.S. District Court South Carolina U.S. District Court South Dakota U.S. District Court Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court Tennessee Western U.S. District Court Texas Eastern U.S. District Court Texas Northern U.S. District Court Texas Southern U.S. District Court Texas Western U.S. District Court Utah U.S. District Court Vermont U.S. District Court Virgin Islands U.S. District Court Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court Virginia Western U.S. District Court Washington Eastern U.S. District Court Washington Western U.S. District Court West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court Wyoming U.S. District Court Louisiana U.S. District Court Washington U.S. District Court West Virginia U.S. District Court Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court South Carolina Western U.S. District Court Alabama U.S. District Court U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone Georgia U.S. District Court Illinois U.S. District Court Indiana U.S. District Court Iowa U.S. District Court Michigan U.S. District Court Mississippi U.S. District Court Missouri U.S. District Court New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court) New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court) New York U.S. District Court North Carolina U.S. District Court Ohio U.S. District Court Pennsylvania U.S. District Court Tennessee U.S. District Court Texas U.S. District Court Virginia U.S. District Court Norfolk U.S. District Court Wisconsin U.S. District Court Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court New Jersey U.S. District Court California U.S. District Court Florida U.S. District Court Arkansas U.S. District Court District of Orleans U.S. District Court State Supreme Court State Appellate Court State Trial Court Eastern Circuit (of the United States) Middle Circuit (of the United States) Southern Circuit (of the United States) Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming Circuit Court of the District of Columbia Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma Court of Private Land Claims United States Supreme Court