*1 MAYOR OF LIPSCOMB DALLAS, WISE, et et al. al. 22, 1978 Argued April 26, 1978—Decided June 77-529. No. *2 White, opinion, judgment delivered an J., announced the and Court’s concurring Powell, opinion in Stewart, J., joined. J., an in which filed Burger, J., and part concurring judgment, and in C. which J., Rehnquist, Rehnquist, JJ., joined, post, p. Blackmun and 547. Powell, separate Burger, J., C. and Stewart opinion, filed a which JJ., joined, post, J., dissenting opinion, p. Marshall, 549. filed JJ., joined, post, p. Stevens, which Brennan With petitioners. Joseph G. Werner cause argued Holt. him the brief was Lee E. With respondents.
James A. Johnston the cause for argued L. *3 III Walter him on B. Cloutman and the brief were Edward Martinez, J. Morris Avila, and Joaquin Irvin. G. Vilma S. Bailer for al. respondents Callejo filed a brief et United for argued pro
Peter Buscemi hac vice the cause him on urging curiae affirmance. With States amicus McCree, Attorney Gen brief Solicitor General Assistant were Reinstein.* Landsberg, Robert Days, eral Brian K. J. of the Court judgment announced Justice White Mr. opinion an in which Mr. Justice Stewart and delivered joined. be- distinguishing of recurring issue
This case involves the reappor- imposed judicially legislatively tween enacted legislative bodies. tionments of state
I
resi-
and Mexican-American
Negro
In 1971 respondents,
District
States
in the United
Tex., filed suit
of Dallas,
dents
Redlich,
Derfner, Norman
Barr, Armand
Bane, Thomas D.
A.
*Charles
J.
Murphy, Norman
A.
Ginger,
J.
Robert
Parker,
R.
Thomas
Frank
Lawyers Commit-
a
for the
E.
filed
brief
Caldwell
Chachkin, and William
urging affirmance.
amicus curiae
Law as
Rights Under
for Civil
tee
Court for
Northern
of
against petitioners,
District
Texas
Mayor
City
of Dallas,
and members of the
Council
city’s legislative
at-large system
of
body, alleging electing council
unconstitutionally
members
diluted the vote
of
They sought
racial minorities.
declaratory judgment
a
injunction
this effect and an
of council-
requiring the election
men from single-member
complaint
districts. The
was dis-
for
missed
failure to state
of
claim,
a
but the Court
for
Fifth
disagreed
Lipscomb
Circuit
and remanded.
Jonsson,
On January 17, 1975, certifying after con- plaintiff class sisting Negro city all citizens and fol- of Dallas1 lowing evidentiary an hearing, orally District system declared that at-large elections to the Dallas City Council unconstitutionally voting strength diluted the Negro city citizens.2 The Court then District “afforded an opportunity legislative body as a for Dallas prepare which App. would be 29. constitutional.”
On January 20, passed Council resolution which stated the Council an intended enact ordinance which would provide eight for Council be elected members from single-member remaining districts and the three members, including the to be at-large. elected This Mayor, plan was submitted January to the Court on The court remedy then hearing conducted a “to determine the *4 constitutionality of proposed City the new plan by Dallas.” Ibid. After an extensive an- hearing, the court nounced in an oral opinion February delivered on 8, 1975, city’s plan guidelines met constitutional and was ac-
1 plaintiffs, Several including plaintiffs, all of the were Mexican-American dismissed from case respond interrogatories. to failure Two subsequently attempted Mexican-Americans The intervene. application denied their permitted later but several Mexican- participate remedy Americans to in the hearing at-large held after the system election was declared unconstitutional. 2 appeal Petitioners ruling did question this and do not it here.
539 near opinion it would issue a written ceptable and that formally enacted City days Two Council later, future. court issued 25, and on March promised ordinance, con- findings of fact opinion containing memorandum city as a valid sustaining again clusions of law and Supp. (1975).3 Act. 399 782 legislative F. (1977). 1043 551 2d
The Court of reversed. F. city’s evaluating the erred It held that the District Court also standards rather than only actions under constitutional v. School Bd. of East Carroll Parish applying teaching cir- Marshall, exceptional 424 636 absent (1976), that, U. S. plans should judicially imposed reapportionment cumstances, no concluded that only single-member districts. It employ departure justified existed in case which considerations this instructions preference from and remanded with this itself into an require city reapportion District Court granted single-member districts.4 We appropriate number of on the certiorari, (1978), grounds 434 1008 and reverse U. S. Carroll Parish Appeals misapprehended the Court of East predecessors. School Bd. and its
II redistricting re- repeatedly The Court has held task which legislative bodies is legislative apportioning pre-empt. every effort not the federal courts should make Chapman v. Finch, (1977); 414-415 407, Connor 431 U. S. v. Cummings, 412 U. S. Meier, Gaffney v. 1, (1975); 420 27 U. S. Richardson, U. 84-85 73, Burns 384 S. (1973); held under 1, 1975, election was April the Dallas Council On ap electorate appeal the eight/three During pendency plan. incorpo April thus proved this in a referendum conducted rating it into the Charter. city may election of provide for the court stated that the citywide Mayor by election if Justice Powell general it desired. Mr. Court. judgment disposition stayed Appeals’ pending the Court S. *5 540
(1966). existing apportion- When a federal court declares an ment scheme unconstitutional, appropriate, is therefore, for opportunity whenever practicable, to afford a reasonable legislature requirements by adopt- to meet constitutional ing a substitute measure rather than for the federal court to devise plan. legislative and order into its own The new effect if plan, forthcoming, governing it, will then be the law unless “ is challenged too, and found to violate the Constitution. [A] freedom of appor- State’s choice to devise substitutes for an plan tionment found either as or unconstitutional, a whole should part, beyond not be restricted clear commands Id., the Equal Protection Clause.” at 86.
Legislative bodies should not reapportionment leave their courts; tasks to the federal legislative but when those with responsibilities do or respond, state imminence election impractical makes it to do them it becomes the so, Finch, “unwelcome Connor obligation,” supra, v. at 415, federal court to devise impose pending legislative later action. In discharging this duty, district courts “will be held to stricter standards . . . than will . legislature a state . . .” Among S., at other requirements, a prefer court-drawn should single- member districts over per multimember districts, absent justification suasive contrary. Johnson, to the Connor v. 402 U. 690, S. We have repeatedly reaffirmed this principle. remedial Connor Williams, v. 404 U. S.
(1972); Howell, Mahan (1973); U. Chap v. S. Meier, man v. supra, 18; East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, supra, at 639. requirement that federal special circum- courts, absent
stances, employ single-member they districts when impose remedial plans, recognition reflects prac- the fact “the tice of multimember districting can contribute to voter con- fusion, legislative make representatives more from remote their constituents, and tend to submerge minorities electoral overrepresent majorities electoral . * .” Connor .
541
Finch, supra, at 415. See also Chapman Meier,
at
supra,
v.
15-16. Despite these dangers,
this Court has declined to
hold that state multimember
per
districts are
se unconstitu-
tional.
for
See,
example,
Chavis,
Whitcomb v.
403
124
U. S.
(1971);
Dorsey,
Fortson v.
The foregoing principles, worked out in the of rec- course onciling the requirements of the Constitution with the goals political state policy, guidelines are useful and serve to many decide cases. But, as is true in this their case, appli- cation to the facts presented always is immediately ob- vious. Furthermore, impact distinctive 5 of the § Voting Rights 1965, Act of as amended, 89 Stat. U. S. C. 1973c (1970 § ed., Supp. V), upon power
5The numerous
required
cases in which this Court has
single-
the use of
member districts
in court-ordered
plans have all involved
apportionment
which,
schemes
case,
unlike the one in this
were held uncon
they departed
stitutional because
from the one-person, one-vote rule of
Reynolds
Sims,
(1964),
Ill subject Texas was not to the Voting Rights Act when this case was pending the District Court. Hence, insofar as law was concerned, federal when the District Court invali- provisions dated the the Dallas Charter mandating at-large Council elections, city was not free but only was expected to devise a substitute rather than to leave the matter
6“A decree of the United States District Court is not within reach of Section 5 of Voting Rights Johnson, Act.” Connor v. 402 U. S. found, District Court Court. This duty, District plan discharged city eight/three when the enacted the was legis- if “the Noting only electing Council members. respon- would the reapportionment] lature failed in task, [its declaring sibility fall to the federal courts” merely “hastily one conceived adopted by the Council was not Supp., for the F. purposes litigation,” of this plan constitutional proceeded District Court to declare the Council seats. despite voting the use of for three at-large District Court’s Although there are indications in the some governing rules opinion striving satisfy was those it their own they federal courts when devise as Court, to us plans, balance, seems brief, reviewed the in its amicus the United States observes legislatively plan proposed the Council apportionment plan.7 enacted in this disagreement was not Court of approved court district
respect. It observed that “[t]he city ordinance as a City’s plan relief, which enacted *8 system was prior court’s that the following the decision further noted at 1045. 2d, unconstitutional.” F. It City by formally the adopted plan “the election [was] Id., at 1046. Council.” the ruling of the Court of disturb
Neither did the did, constitutional. It the was District ordinance Court preference satisfy special plan also however, insist courts are district single-member applicable where districts plans devising put to task themselves Court because judgment of the reversed the and of those presence record disclose its view the did not from departure warrant that would special circumstances saying it’s “I’m not announcement, judge remarked: oral his drawn. Court would have plan even that this plan. It’s not the best legislative That’s the plan-drawing in the business. not But Court’s duty.” Record 195. clearly
rule. This was error unless there was some convincing why reason the District Court was not entitled to consider substitute under the principles applicable legis- latively adopted reapportionment plans. no As we see it, presented. such reason has been is suggested city
It power was without to enact the ordinance because the at-large system unconsti- declared tutional was City established because, Charter and under the Texas Constitution, XI, Art. 5,§ and Texas stat- utory law, Ann., Tex. Rev. Civ. (Vernon Supp. Stat. Art. 1170 1978), the Charter cannot be amended without a vote of people. But the District was of a different view. Although Council itself had power no to change the at- large system long as the Charter provision remained intact, once the provision Charter was declared unconstitutional, and, null effect, void, the Council was free to exercise its legislative powers which it did enacting the eight/three plan. 399 F. Supp., at Tr. of Oral 800; Arg. 6. When the City Council reapportioned itself by means resolution and ordinance, it not purporting to amend City Charter only but legislative to exercise its powers as governing Dallas’ body. The Court of Appeals did disagree with the District this respect, and we are in no position to overturn the District acceptance Court’s of the city ordinance as a legislative valid response to the court’s declaration of unconstitutionality.8 suggests statutory, record no constitutional, judicial state pro or upon authority hibition Council municipal to enact a election under circumstances such as this respondents have been any unable to support cite for its contention that the Council exceeded authority. It must be noted that since provision there is no under *9 reapportionment Texas law for of Home Rule cities such as Dallas legislature,
state or other agency, state acceptance respondents’ position of utterly would leave Dallas powerless reapportion to itself in those instances remaining where the time before the next scheduled election is too brief permit approval to plan by a new referendum. We are sup- not Bd. Marshall does Parish School
East Carroll in this case of the Court conclusion port judicial city must be viewed by the plan presented In the District that case legislative. than rather file to school boards police jury and instructed the East Carroll multimember They both submitted a plans. reapportionment We held adopted. court which the arrangement plan because multimember approving erred in District Court to the task put courts are district “when United States concededly plans supplant reapportionment to fashioning pre- be districts are single-member invalid state legislation, S., at circumstances.” ferred absent unusual emphasized we however, reaching conclusion, reappor- plans purport did not which submitted the bodies do so legally not even furthermore, could and, tion themselves with providing them legislation law under federal because state Attorney General by the disapproved been powers such had Act of 1965. Voting Rights under 5 of § the United States it circumstances, Under 638 n. these S., 6, U. n. 2. submitting plan was act of was concluded that the mere per- legislative of a Act equivalent political processes formed accordance with the question. community is this case conclusion, if with that disagreed
Even one After Carroll School Bd. markedly from East Parish different electing method of existing found that January 17, defective on constitutionally Council perform an opportunity of Dallas “gave it F. acceptable plan.” 399 duty constitutionally to enact a body govern- City Council, legislative 792. The Supp., at advantage opportunity took of this ing Dallas, promptly “that stated January 1975, passed a resolution which interpretation Dallas law in the unwilling adopt such of Texas and an any accepted be Texas indication that it would absence of whatsoever courts. *10 pass of majority of the Council to an
is the intention plan eight single-member of districts [enacting ordinance elected individuals, including Mayor, be with three to February the District App. 8, 1975, 188. On at-large].” opinion following in an oral held hearing Court announced constitutionality city’s plan that it was consider the city’s plan jurisdiction. days but retained Two accepting the February 10, on as enacted later, Council, promised, eight/three Id., incorporating plan. ordinance at 189. an opinion subsequently, In filed a written the District Court city of specifically found "that has met [the Dallas] ![its in elect duty enacting eight/three constitutional] Supp., council members.” 399 F. at 792. unlike ing Here, Bd., in the situation East Carroll Parish School as the Court body Dallas it, governing validly there viewed fnet its replacing apportionment provision responsibility invali dated the District with one which could survive by scrutiny. Appeals constitutional The Court therefore erred regarding imposed as court in subjecting it to scrutiny stringent required a level of more than that by the Constitution.9 it
Finally, urged Appeals is be affirmed subject Voting Rights Texas became 5 of the § because pending appeal Act while the case was on and because under amended, Dallas could neither nor 5,§ enact seek to ad- any reapportionment plan minister different from in ef- 1, 1972, securing fect November without the clearance urged for city called section. It is that the ordinance February 1975, upon by relied the District Court and light disposition, petitioners’ of our we do not consider claim that holding the Court of alleged also erred effect of all single-member representation districts on the of Mexican-American voters desirability citywide representation and the of permitting some did not special justifying departure preference constitute circumstances from the single-member reapportionments districts remedial conducted federal courts. 'Texas, becoming applicable
validly prior § enacted 5’s until has secured the as effective law cannot be considered to the respect is said with necessary approval. same *11 in Dallas approved by people of amendment Charter supra. 3,n. See 5§ to address however, think inappropriate,
We it judg- of seek to sustain Respondents may, course, issue. by Appeals; on not the Court employed below grounds ment 5§ to whether preliminary question there is a but did not cross- open Respondents is in this Court. issue if it would sustaining even submission, § 5 petition, would alter respondents’ favor, relief expand not Appeals. See by issued the Court of judgment nature Co., York Telephone New 434 U. S. United States v. obligated event, however, In we are (1977). any 8n. Appeals where particularly the Court here, issue address it way because apparently not deal with it or did -one another — reach judicial product beyond the considered the tb.be a onAct impact Voting Rights The of the section. approved on city ordinance and the Charter amendment appropriate and we deem open remand, referendum will be questions. with these Appeals for the Court of deal reversed, is and the of the Court of judgment proceedings. further to that court for case is remanded
So ordered. Justice, The Chief Powell, Justice with whom Mr. Rehnquist join, Blackmun, and Mr. Justice Justice Mr. judgment. in the concurring part concurring reap- I conclusion that the agree with Justice White’s Mr. was a Dallas Council adopted by the portionment plan federal court. of review plan” purposes "legislative that con- reaching my however, reasoning his view, Richardson, 384 U. S. Burns v. casts doubt on clusion reads East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Mr. Justice White Marshall, (1976), as establishing principle S. proposed reapportionment plan cannot be considered if legislative plan political body suggesting legal it lacks power reapportion Ante, itself. 545. Because ordinarily Council would have had no power reapportion necessary itself —a Charter amendment being to that end— is constrained to assume that the Council Mr. Justice White power became imbued with such after the District Court struck down the apportionment provisions the City Charter. from the Aside aspect fact Texas law was neither fully nor argued, briefed the assumption seems unnecessary. Richardson, supra,
In Burns v. Legislature Hawaii *12 power reapportion without a itself, constitutional amend being for required ment that purpose. this Nevertheless, plan legislature treated the that the proposed to submit to the legislative plan. By voters as a reasoning, of parity plan proposed the by Dallas Council in City must case be if legislative, power considered even the Council had no reapportion itself. The plan Council was implemented then by court 399 order, Supp. (ND F. 782, 1975), just 798 Tex. as legislature’s plan in ultimately Bums imposed pending was outcome the constitutional amendment process, atS.,U. point essential is that the Dallas Council exercised
a legislative judgment, reflecting policy of the choices representatives elected rather than the remedial people, directive of a federal court. As held in Burns, supra, we at “a freedom of State’s choice to devise substitutes for an apportionment plan found either unconstitutional, a whole as or in should be part, beyond restricted the clear commands Equal Protection Clause.” This rule of deference to legislative judgments local in remains if, force even as Burns, our examination of suggests state law the local lacks body authority reapportion itself. Carroll that East statement White’s
Thus, Mr. Justice submitted proposition Bd. School stands be itself cannot reapportion body power without political with conflict to be in direct plan appears legislative considered did not East Carroll curiam in per the brief Burns. Because facts. turning peculiar on its Burns, I as would read it cite even Carroll, legislature in East litigation to the response re- boards to enabling juries and school police enacted a statute That at-large elections. by employing themselves apportion Attorney General by the legislation disapproved was enabling Act of Voting Rights § under States the United because (1970 Supp. V), ed., § C. 1973c amended, U. S. determi- This impact Negro voters. impermissible of its the school specific plans proposed meant nation had unlawful would have jury that case police board found had been legislative judgment Because their effects. presump- the normal followed that respect, in that tainted legislative reflected in the balances afforded legitimacy tion of To Burns, indulged. be could not supra, 84-85, plans, see about anything further implies Carroll East extent held Burns, must be to' the latter established principle control. Burns that on the basis of
Having determined I agree with Mr. Justice legislative, Council Court of judgment conclusion that White’s for this I no reason agree that there is *13 also be reversed. must concerning 5 of § questions difficult explore to of consideration Act in the absence Rights Voting below. courts with whom Rehnquist, Justice
Opinion Mr. Justice Stewart, Justice Justice, Chief Mr. Mr. join. Powell not is today the Court emphasize
I to that separately write of whether question with presented city of government form of that the concluding erred in power unconstitutionally voting Dallas diluted the of black citizens. this Court has found the use of multi- While legislative apportionment plan may member districts a state invidiously be invalid if “used or to cancel out minimize the Regester, voting strength of racial White v. groups/’ S. to (1973), we have never had occasion consider amorphous theory whether be analogue highly may an of this municipal applied petitioners to did not governments. Since preserve today this issue on we need consider appeal, not whether may relevant constitutional distinctions be drawn in legislature municipal this area between state govern- and a I only point possibility ment. write of such out today’s distinctions has been foreclosed decision.
Mr. Justice Brennan with whom Mr. Marshall, Justice and Mr. Justice join, dissenting. Stevens
I agree with decision not reach majority’s Voting Rights presented Act question, since was not either of I analysis the courts agree past below. also with the of our decisions found in II of Mr. opinion. Part Justice White’s I cannot agree, however, that actions the Dallas distinguishable Council are from governing those the local Marshall, body East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. I U. 636 (1976). S. therefore conclude ordered by the District Court here must be evaluated accordance with the federal common applicable judi- law remedies devised cially plans.
I Marshall, East Carroll supra, Parish School Bd. v. suit against parish (county) initially brought by white resident who claimed population disparities among of the parish unconstitutionally wards denied equal him an vote in elections members of the school board and the governing body police jury, parish. Following *14 adopted the District Court unconstitutionality, of finding at-large which called for by police jury, the plan submitted years (after the of both bodies. Two later elections at-large plan response court’s the direction, to the census), Marshall by police jury. Respondent the was resubmitted would at-large elections intervened, arguing the then of Fourteenth Negro vote in dilute the violation again accepted District Fifteenth Amendments. The of hold- police Appeals reversed, but the Court jury plan, were unconstitutional. ing districts that multimember ground relied reach Although we did not the constitutional judgment.. We Appeals, we sustained its the Court equitable dis- had abused concluded that single- into parish in not requiring cretion division member wards: United the rule that when have reaffirmed frequently
“We fashioning put courts to the task district are States concededly invalid supplant reapportionment plans to pre- are to be single-member districts legislation, state atS., unusual circumstances.” ferred absent treated that we plain foregoing It is from the as a legislative body in East Carroll local submitted common law judicially plan, to which federal devised applicable. was cases developed remedies jury’s sub- police we plain It did not equally is treat only would which “legislatively plan, as a enacted” mission would strictures of the Constitution have had to meet the under the necessarily subject been to evaluation have plans. court-devised stringent applicable more standards Indeed, Finch, U. 414-415 Connor v. S. See (appearing of the United States argument rejecting subject to Carroll curiae) the East amicus Act of Rights Voting procedure § 5 preclearance “did police jury not have noted expressly 1965, we sub- though plan, itself,” and that authority reapportion *15 by police mitted the jury, was a “court-ordered pla[n] result- ing equitable from jurisdiction adversary over proceed- the ings.” 424 U. atS., 638-639, n. 6.
There is no meaningful distinction between the facts here and the in facts East Carroll. Like in police jury East Carroll, City Council of pursuant Dallas did not act to any state enabling legislation governing procedures reapportioning itself when proposed eight/three it first plan to the January District in 1975. Nor did act it pursuant any authority state-derived when “enacted” plan following the Court’s approval first init March 1975. Under the City terms of its Charter, the Dallas Council reapportion could only by itself popular a referendum. See Tex. Const., XI, 5;§ Tex. Art. Art. Ann., Rev. Civ. Stat. (Yernon Supp. 1978). unquestionably The Council failed to comply with existing procedures state for enact- ing a plan; indeed, the District Court itself noted were that, City the Dallas responding Council not to a judicial finding of unconstitutionality, it would been have acting unlawfully in unilaterally reapportioning itself. 399 Supp. F. (ND 1975). Tex.
That plan was not devised Council usual legislative course of responsibilities is further evi- denced fact that the Council told a group Mexican- American citizens, who present wished to for the Council’s deliberations an alternative, single-member district plan, they were in “wrong forum” go and should federal court. App. 43-44. It seems clear that the eight/three plan was proposed less as a legislative matter of judgment than aas response by party litigant to the court’s invitation to aid in a plan. devising Indeed, the District appeared Court itself times to regard eight/three plan court-devised in which at-large voting justified had to be by special unique ante, circumstances. See at 543 (opinion of J.). White, here,
It is that the Council suggested police unlike the jury Carroll, purported reapportion East first itself when it ante, plan. eight/three See at 545 (opinion submitted J.). simply is not the But that case. This White, initially form of proposed not a formal, binding merely expression of the Council’s “inten- enactment but as an did even bother App. go tion.” 188. The Council through enacting supposedly binding ordi- formality of *16 following until full hearing, nance after a Court, the District remedy for plan indicated that of the as a approved it prior followed violations; procedures constitutional to the implementation when the of the time ordered eight/three under state law plan, were insufficient moreover, validly change Council. structure our past legislatively a
While decisions have held that response enacted to a plan preferred is the I finding judicial do not apportionment, unconstitutional legislature believe that cases could contemplated these that a meet this responsibility thereby require- avoid the —and applicable to plans by making ments a sub- court-devised — procedures govern- mission not in accordance with valid state ing legislative If in East enactments.1 submitted regarded properly judicially plan, Carroll was devised as a agree my Richardson, 1I do not with Burns v. Brother that Powell (1966), any legislative proposition 384 II. S. 73 stands for the that sub Burns, “legislative plan.” mission be whatsoever should treated as a very by changes apportionment which could be made mechanism by designed under state law had been found the District Court to be existing apportionments freeze and had thus been held unconstitutional right. (Haw. 1965). Supp. 468, unconstitutional in its own 238 F. Here, contrast, modifying there was a lawful mechanism available for apportionment drafting pro under the of a Dallas Charter: posal city the Council and its submission to the voters of the at a completed popular process If referendum. this could not be in time for election, justified devising the next then the District Court be a would J.). temporary, plan. ante, (opinion White, court-ordered See at 540 Williams, also Connor v. See S. n. us today
then before must I also be so regarded, depart see no reason to from implications the clear unanimous decision only Court rendered two Terms I ago. therefore conclude properly this plan evaluated under the standards of federal common years which for law, recognized has dis- multimember at-large voting tricts and are presumptively disfavored.
II if Even this plan properly were to be viewed as “legisla- tively enacted” plan, however, majority’s assump- apparent tion represents a proper remedy would nonetheless be troubling. the very Where nature of underlying vio- lation is dilution of the voting power of re- minority a racial from sulting the effects of at-large voting particular I political community, believe that it is inappropriate either legislative body the local respond or more with court of the same.
Although we have from holding refrained multi- member districts are per se, unconstitutional the presumption *17 single-member in favor of districts as a matter of federal reme- e, is strong g., dial law a one. See, Connor 402 Johnson, v. (1971); S. 690 Connor Williams, U. v. 404 U. 551 S. 549, (1972); Chapman Meier, v. U. 1, 420 S. 16-19 We (1975). have repeatedly explained preference by this of virtue the fact that multimember districts “tend to submerge electoral minor- overrepresent ities and majorities.” electoral Connor v. Finch, S., 415; accord, Chavis, at Whitcomb v. 403 124, U. 158-159 Meier, S. Chapman See also v. supra,
In case, essentially the instant is undisputed that the use of city a multimember (the district of Dallas) for the at-large of election all City Council members “submerged” had an Negro electoral the minority, voters of Dallas. re- spect Carroll, the case is unlike East where original the electoral scheme was solely invalidated on ground the of mal- challenge “racial dilution” and where the
apportionment remedy. Multi- proposed to the only objection raised as court-devised reme- districts, are disfavored which member potential to create racial “tendency” of their or dies because are they disfavored when should be dilution, fortiori . . . a “multi-member use of proved cure proposed to of strength or voting to minimize cancel out the scheme ... Fortson v. voting population.” the racial elements of . . . (1965).2 Dorsey, S.U. Negro respondents’ proof diluting of a effect on
Based jure history of de strength long voting Dallas —and held contributing District Court to it—the discrimination Although unconstitutional. the Coun- scheme to be the Dallas of at-large election finding the challenge cil did not it submitted unconstitutional, its members was all origi- replicated offending feature the District election of three at-large for providing nal scheme respondents burden on put To Council members. at-large perpetuates insofar as it submission, prove that unconstitutional as is as voting members, for Council I contrary logic common sense. original seems prin- or remedial agree that either Constitution cannot such result. ciples equity require I believe that reasons, both these For at-large voting use of correctly held that been city of Dallas should have Council members in this remedy case approved part I therefore dissent. Court. (1973), af Regester, 412 U. 765-770 this Court S. In White directing that unconstitutional multi- order an a District Court
firmed single-member designated reapportioned into districts district be member *18 found the multimember district Court had the court. Negro voting strength, effect on dilutive be because unconstitutional remedy legis awaiting a of its without implementation and had ordered Barnes, finding unconstitutionality. See Graves v. response to its lative court). (WD 1972) (three-judge Supp. 704 343 F. Tex.