*1 GRAY, al. v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et
OF OF ELECTIONS BALTIMORE
COUNTY, et al. 226, September Term, 1966 (Adv.).]
[No. *2 4, 1966. August
Dеcided 23, 1966. opinion August Concurring filed argued before entire Court. The cause was Jr., tyeisheit, Covahey, was C. with whom /. Bdward Elmer Sollins, brief, Jr., Harry for Stanley part appellants; on the Moore, Attorney, whom was Shapiro, with B. Scott S. John brief, another Baltimore County, appellant; on for the. Jr., Gray, A. other appеllant. the brief for William Bishop, of Super- John J. Caslin Board Murray Richard C. no visors of Baltimore County, part appellees; Elections brief filed for other appellee.
Hammond, Barnes, delivered the J., the Court. opinion J., concurs in result. Concurring opinion page infra. In Council of en- County duly Baltimore Junе Bill acted No. 54 of Legislative of 1966 which Session amended 206 of the Charter of the section es- County (that § tablished seven councilmanic districts) divide the districts, into seven new such approximately equal population- wise, which coincided with the seven sena- geographically torial residencе and voting districts Ch. 735 provided introduced, As 1966. the bill Laws that the provided voters of each councilmanic district were to elect a council- district, man one resident of the but this de- was provision bill, leted during passage leaving un- apparent *3 impaired effect both 201 (a) of the Charter for a providing § mеmbers, council of seven each of whom must reside in a dif- ferent one of the districts established by and 201 (b), § § that : providing
“all members of the county council shall be elected on the general ticket the by qualified of voters the entire as county members of the General Assembly are or elected, be may and shall they likewise be nominated of General members the are Assembly may be nominated under of provisions the laws of the State * * of Maryland thereafter G. Walter Tyrie, Jr., Soon an incumbent council- reelection, man and a candidate for filed a suit in the Circuit the a County seeking declaration that a candidate for the council must be selected only by the qualified voters of the in which he by district resides reason of the language of 201 § that (b) councilmen are to be elected as are members of the or, General Assembly alternatively, the dictates of the federal constitution as the intеrpreted by Supreme Court. ruled
Judge against Proctor these contentions in a sound 660 that the constitution and laws of holding (a) Mary-
opinion, of County land and the the Charter election provisions required of the voters of the entire those by County despite councilmen 201 of the Charter that the electiоn and provisions of (b) § same as those for the nomination of councilmen are to be the the read this to mean that Assembly (he members of General councilmen should nominated and elected in the same pro- be cedural and mechanical as members of the General Assem- way of bly (b) arе or and that the election councilmen may be), by from residence the concededly equal population districts un- constitutionality met voters the entire the test County one-man, der the established by Supreme one-vote principle Court. and the
Councilman announced he would not Tyrie aрpeal, of Bal- present suit then was instituted two voters by registered timore from the District and County, one a Democrat Second District, seeking one from the Fourth declara- Republican and the against tion the Board of Supervisors Elections election of coun- the Charter (b) requires § uncon- cilmen that if it does not it is by alleging districts cured by stitutional and the should be unconstitutionality court districts. The case submitted decreeing voting by was allegations complainant’s Turnbull on those of fact Judge bill which were admitted the Board’s answer by (the did exhibits in the includ- Tyrie participate) ing Charter as submitted to the voters adoрtion notes, 735 of the Laws together Reporter’s with Ch. establishing of 1966 senatorial districts with election Council of 1966 only, bill districts, the councilmanic of counsel to revising opinions Turnbull as had Judge the Charter Board. ruled Proctor Judge for the reasons forth in Proctor’s which he Judge opinion, set *4 adopted.
The of the that councilmen in char- appellants contention tered elected under only counties must now be law State by the districts of their residences as members of the the fully General now are to be is answered and Assembly disposed Montgomery that contention in our in adversely opinion to Council, Garrott, al., et аl. v. Idamae et County 243 Md.
661 634, 164, 222 A. 2d for set forth and the reasons therein we under hold law the the provisions that State Charter election of county-wide of Baltimore for the from are must fol- councilmen residence districts valid and be lowed.
The contentions of the that the constitutional de- appellants the mands of the one-person, by one-vote established principle decisions the election councilmen Supreme require districts, by law to despite the likewise must be contrary, held in rejected. Montgomery County We the Council case that county-wide was a voting councilmen valid device. political that appellants concede the plan county-wide election from residence districts of equal valid un- population facially der v. 433, Fortson 2d Dorsey, 379 U. 13 L. 401. They S. Ed. however, on rely, S., the caveat in Fortson 439 of 379 U. (p. p. “that, 405 of 13 that it be 2d), might L. designedly Ed. otherwise, scheme, a multi-member constituency apportionment under the of a particular circumstances would operate minimize or cancel the strength out of racial or political elements of the voting population,” it is claiming appli- cable to the situation in the case. instant This reliance is based on (a) the following figures (all being there are approximate): 183,000 49,000 presently registered Democrats and but regis- 61,000 tered in Republicans County, Baltimore of the Demo- 12,400 crats and in Republicans the Dundalk and being area, 11,700 5,900 Democrats and in Republicans Essex being 31,600 district, 12,- the third councilmanic Democrats and district; 900 fourth сouncilmanic Republicans the and (b) that in general fact elections that held have been since of the Charter Baltimore adoption Republican four candidates councilman who by won their districts lost reason of the vote elsewhere in the County—in 1957 (using approximate figures) the won in fourth Republican district 2,000 6,000; by votes but large lost by Repub- 1,100 lican won in the third district by votes but lost at large 23,000; in by by won in third Republican district 2,100 large votes but lost at and in fourth by district 1,500 the Republican won votes lost at by large 21,300. *5 662 mere recital of the basis for the claim of the appellants
that the Baltimore of councilmanic is un plan elections to that is reveal the claim far short enough constitutional falls in record of of demonstration the invidious discrimination the votes, of of which has by reason dilution the Supreme if a voting said is of to be necessary plan apportionment is under the one-vote Fort principle. invalidаted one-person, See S., son, 439 of 379 U. 405 13 where (p. p. 2d) Ed. L. to the that the was Georgia answer under review plea plan minimize the minori strength political to racial and adopted ties, Court said “When this is demonstrated it be time the will to consider whether the still constitu enough system passes however, tional mustеr. This is not the question, presented by 52, Wright 11 Rockefeller, before v. 376 U. us”); record S. Davis, 42, 512; 382 2d 2d Burnette v. U. 15 L. S. L. Ed. Ed. Davis, 35, Mann v. 245 241 affirming Supp. (E.D.Va. F. Richardson, 384 U. 16 2d 376. Burns v. 1965); S. L. Ed. on point Montgomery also the discussion the the See Mann, (N. F. 22 supra, Council and Reed v. Supp. a 1964), a court method three-judge upheld D. Ga. where resi county Georgia County—four commissiоners in a electing of the dence districts with election vote that county claim County—against voters of entire of a vote overrode the will of the residents district. wide conclusions from far-reaching draw sweeping Appellants resi- assert that the meager they They data have presented. sеrves to “disfranchise the vot- requirement dence-in-district party members ing weight Republican (minority) who for the Republican vote sympathetic qualified other a area third fourth candidate in geographical districts] [the cent twenty-five population encompassing per (25%) in- that “unless County.” urge Baltimore They and electorate of invoked, readily foreseeable and predict- district it is nominee able, that the Republican performances, based past be the districts Third and will of these each Fourth] [the fail to again but once will within choice popular Democratic vote elsеwhere because of the dominant be elected the interests of “silk stock- suggest that County.”- They section of Baltimore Valley Green Spring resident of the ing” County are so different from those of resident Essex the two should not be to obviously combine elect permitted course, the same representative. urge that “of They purest and proper form of representative government would require *6 exactly the opposite, i.e. the in-district and not the out-of-dis- trict vote is to decide the district representative.” one-man,
The thus in appellants effect that the one-vote say principle requires proportional representation or which plan will insure or facilitate the election aof in a particular group, particular area. We do so Fur- not understand the principle. ther, if even it be assumed that the statistics relied were significant, do constitutionally they the сonclusions justify the appellants from draw them. They disregard overlook fact that seventeen twenty-one councilmen who been have elected since the Charter was were well as adopted large as winners; in-district that the vote of every voter the County seventeen, who voted for thоse as well the vote of every such voter who voted the four in-district-winners-at-large- losers carried equal weight; in-district winners Third and Fourth districts twice large have been at winners as well; that five of the total of twenty-one councilmen who have been elected under the Charter have been that the Republican; incumbent District, councilman from the which Second includes the “silk stocking” Green lives, Spring Valley which he is a Republican who was elected aby of both plurality the in-dis- vote; trict and at large and that the present County Executive of Baltimore County (one of two who have been elected under Charter), who is elected county-wide, is a Republican. lamentations of appellants as to the claimed and feared past future discriminations against Republican voters and office seek- ers fact, seem to be unduly exaggerated in and meaningless in law.
What is appellants really that the say in-district system of voting for councilmen is politically to and preferable philo- better sophically but, than This county-wide voting. be so may is, not, itself, that it assuming this does make the at large voting system unconstitutional.
The Charter Board which prepared Baltimore County decided, Charter after it had been advised its by counsel that
county-wide must be used elec- under law for the councilmen, tion of to recommend to the of the County voters a residence district It in its re- requirement. gave its reasons port to the of the this wise: people
“Councilmen will be of the en- by elected tire but each Councilman will have to reside County, in one of the councilmanic districts. separate seven this We believe that will insure on the representation Council for each with section interests, different at the and different but problems same time will County-wide respon- the Council have * * * vot- sibility. The election of councilmen a residence subject ers of the entire but County, under give County, will the voters of requirement Charter, the maximum degree representation far greater guar- under law. It is a possible present existing than found in the antee representation *7 all and all system, whereby County Commissioners are elected at Assembly in the General representatives all.” Pro- residence large any requirement without Mary- Baltimore County, Home Rule Charter for posed land, XVI, XVII (1955). accepted—reflected recommendation—which the voters
This unit, de- governmental a for a local legitimate system election is no аnd there signed “log rolling,” to eliminate the evils of desire it influenced a to or indication that was suggestion motive. The or other any improper favor or faction any party Mann, supra, in a residence-dis- in Reed v. approving Court trict, of Com- for the election county-wide voting plan similar rejeсted arguments missioners in a Georgia county, case, and and soundly instant well those of appellants said at 24 of 237 F. Supp.: p. to be commissioners is the selection of
“Whether matter, a in the basis is county on a district or wide and governmental policy or political beginning, duties and responsibili- have Cоmmissioners judgment. districts. to their respective which relate specifically ties hand, mat- many embraces position other On ters which concern directly over-all county opera- tions. General Assembly Georgia, at the in- stance of the delegation DeKalb in the General As- sembly, adopted statute in question. It provides for county wide elections. The General Assembly might have However, at that stopped point. it went further and diffused the representation by creating commissioner districts. The General might Assembly have taken the tack reverse and provided wide It did elections. not choose tо do so. The selec- tion of system, as so it not long proscribed by Constitution, is, course, federal not business of the Court. brings And this us to the issue the case.
“The facts together with presented political urged constitutional theories do not disclose any basis which demonstrates any offense to the Constitution.” S., In Fortsоn the said 438 of 404- (p. 379 U. pp. 05 of 13 L. 2d) : Ed.
“It is not accurate to treat a senator from multi-dis- trict county as the representative only that district within the wherein he The statute uses resides. county districts multi-district merely counties the basis candidates, residence not for repre- sentation. district’s senator be a must resident Each district, of that but since his tenure depends upon he county-wide electorate must be vigilant to serve
the interests of all the people county, not district; merely those of his home thus in people fact he is the county’s merely the district’s If the weight any senator. vote of voter in a district, Fulton County whеn he votes for seven sena- *8 Senate, him represent tors to in the Georgia is not the exact of that equivalent single-mem- resident of we ber cannot that his vote constituency, say ‘approximately equal in to that other weight any ” citizen State.’ For the reasons detailed in Mont- given above those supra, Council we no gomery point, find constitutional infirmity present system electing County County. Councilmen Baltimore costs. affirmed,
Order with filed the J., following concurring opinion, Barnes, result.
For the reasons forth in in Mont- my concurring opinion set Garrott, 634, v. gomery County Council 243 Md. 222 A. 2d I in the result concur reached the Court this (1966), case. SALES, INC. v.
ALAMO TRAILER et al. HOWARD COUNTY METROPOLITAN
COMMISSION Term, September 1966 (Adv.).] [No.