In adopting a multimember reapportionment plan for a Louisiana
parish calling for the at-large election of certain parish
officials to remedy malapportionment among the parish wards, the
District Court, in the absence of special circumstances dictating
the use of such a multimember arrangement, abused its discretion in
not initially ordering a single member reapportionment plan.
485 F.2d 1297, affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
The sole issue raised by this case is how compliance with the
one-man, one-vote principle should be achieved in a parish (county)
that is admittedly malapportioned. Plaintiff Zimmer, a white
resident of East Carroll Parish, La., brought suit in 1968 alleging
that population disparities among the wards of the parish had
unconstitutionally
Page 424 U. S. 637
denied him the right to cast an effective vote in elections for
members of the police jury [
Footnote 1] and the school board.
See Avery v. Midland
County, 390 U. S. 474
(1968). After a hearing the District Court agreed that the wards
were unevenly apportioned and adopted a reapportionment plan
suggested by the East Carroll police jury calling for the at-large
election of members of both the police jury and the school board.
[
Footnote 2] The 1969 and 1970
elections were held under this plan.
The proceedings were renewed in 1971 after the District Court,
apparently
sua sponte, instructed the East Carroll police
jury and school board to file reapportionment plans revised in
accordance with the 1970 census. In response, the jury and board
resubmitted the at-large plan. Respondent Marshall was permitted to
intervene on behalf of himself and all other black voters in East
Carroll. Following a hearing, the District Court again
Page 424 U. S. 638
approved the multimember arrangement. The intervenor appealed,
[
Footnote 3] contending that
at-large elections would tend to dilute the black vote in violation
of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the Voting Rights
Act of 1965.
Over a dissent, a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed,
[
Footnote 4] but, on rehearing
en banc, the court reversed. [
Footnote 5] It found clearly erroneous the District
Court's ruling that at-large elections would not diminish the black
voting strength of East Carroll Parish. Relying upon
White v.
Regester, 412 U. S. 755
(1973), it seemingly held that multimember districts were
unconstitutional unless their use would afford a minority greater
opportunity for political participation or unless the use of single
member districts would infringe protected rights.
We granted certiorari, 422 U.S. 1055 (1975), and now affirm the
judgment below, but without approval of the constitutional views
expressed by the Court of Appeals. [
Footnote 6]
Page 424 U. S. 639
See Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288,
297 U. S.
346-347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
The District Court, in adopting the multimember, at-large
reapportionment plan, was silent as to the relative merits of a
single member arrangement. And the Court of Appeals, inexplicably
in our view, declined to consider whether the District Court erred
under
Connor v. Johnson, 402 U. S. 690
(1971), in endorsing a multimember plan, resting its decision
instead upon constitutional grounds. We have frequently reaffirmed
the rule that, when United States district courts are put to the
task of fashioning reapportionment plans to supplant concededly
invalid state legislation, single member districts are to be
preferred absent unusual circumstances.
Chapman v. Meier,
420 U. S. 1,
420 U. S. 17-19
(1975);
Mahan v. Howell, 410 U. S. 315,
410 U. S. 333
(1973);
Connor v. Williams, 404 U.
S. 549,
404 U. S. 551
(1972);
Connor v. Johnson, supra at
402 U. S. 692.
As the en banc opinion of the Court of Appeals amply demonstrates,
no special circumstances here dictate the use of multimember
districts. Thus, we hold that, in shaping remedial relief, the
District Court abused
Page 424 U. S. 640
its discretion in not initially ordering a single member
reapportionment plan.
On this basis, the judgment is
Affirmed.
[
Footnote 1]
In Louisiana, the police jury is the governing body of the
parish. Its authority includes construction and repair of roads,
levying taxes to defray parish expenses, providing for the public
health, and performing other duties related to public health and
welfare. La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 33:1236 (1950 and Supp. 1975).
[
Footnote 2]
Prior to 1968, Louisiana law prohibited at-large elections of
members of police juries and school boards. In July, 1968, the
Governor of Louisiana approved enabling legislation permitting the
at-large election of parish police juries and school boards.
La.Laws 1968, Act No. 445, codified at La.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 33:1221,
33:1224 (Supp. 1975); La.Laws 1968, Act No. 561, codified at
La.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 17:71.1-17:71.6 (Supp. 1975).
Both Acts were submitted to the United States Attorney General
pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, and both were rejected because of their
discriminatory effect on Negro voters.
See letters, June
26, 1969, and Sept. 10, 1969, from Jerris Leonard, Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, to Jack P. F. Gremillion,
Attorney General of Louisiana. Indeed, East Carroll Parish was
cited as exemplifying the dilution in black ballot strength that
at-large voting may cause. Letter of Sept. 10, 1969.
[
Footnote 3]
The original plaintiff, Zimmer, was allowed to withdraw from the
case.
[
Footnote 4]
Zimmer v. McKeithen, 467 F.2d 1381 (CA5 1972).
During pendency of the appeal in the court below, the District
Court purported to withdraw its order approving the at-large plan
and to substitute in its stead a complex redistricting plan
submitted by intervenor Marshall. The Court of Appeals vacated the
order on the ground that, when the appeal was filed, the District
Court lost jurisdiction over the case.
Id. at 1382.
[
Footnote 5]
Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (CA5 1973).
[
Footnote 6]
The Government has filed an
amicus brief, in which it
argues that the preclearance procedures of § 5 of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 must be complied with prior to adoption by a federal
district court of a reapportionment plan submitted to it on behalf
of a local legislative body that is covered by the Act. This issue
was not raised by the petitioners, nor did respondent file a
cross-petition. In any event, we agree with the Court of Appeals,
Zimmer v. McKeithen, 467 F.2d at 1383;
Zimmer v.
McKeithen, 485 F.2d at 1302 n. 9, that court-ordered plans
resulting from equitable jurisdiction over adversary proceedings
are not controlled by § 5. Had the East Carroll police jury
reapportioned itself on its own authority, clearance under § 5 of
the Voting Rights Act would clearly have been required.
Connor
v. Waller, 421 U. S. 656
(1975). However, in submitting the plan to the District Court, the
jury did not purport to reapportion itself in accordance with the
1968 enabling legislation,
see n 2,
supra, and statutes cited therein, which
permitted police juries and school boards to adopt at-large
elections. App. 56. Moreover, since the Louisiana enabling
legislation was opposed by the Attorney General of the United
States under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the jury did not have
the authority to reapportion itself.
See n 2,
supra; Tr. of Oral Arg. 13-14,
31-32, 43-44. Since the reapportionment scheme was submitted and
adopted pursuant to court order, the preclearance procedures of § 5
do not apply.
Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.
S. 690,
402 U. S. 691
(1971).
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring.
I consider it unnecessary to reach the question discussed,
ante at
424 U. S.
638-639, n. 6. It was, as the Court observes in
n 6, "not raised by the petitioners,
nor did respondent file a cross-petition." The scope of § 5 of the
Voting Rights Act is an important matter, and I would not undertake
to express any view on what the Court discusses by way of dicta in
n. 6.
Comments
Be the first to comment
Leave a Comment