Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1968

Avery v. Midland County

390 U.S. 474 | 88 S. Ct. 1114 | 20 L. Ed. 2d 45 | 1968 U.S. LEXIS 2061

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Avery extended one person, one vote to single-member districts electing local bodies that exercise general governmental powers over an entire jurisdiction.

Background

Midland County, Texas, had about 70,000 residents, roughly 95% of whom lived in the City of Midland. Its five-member Commissioners Court included a county judge elected countywide and four commissioners elected from single-member districts. The four districts had estimated populations of 67,906, 852, 414, and 828. Thus, the overwhelmingly urban district elected only one commissioner, while tiny rural districts each elected one.

The Commissioners Court was the county’s general governing body. It set tax rates, issued bonds, adopted budgets, administered welfare services, built roads and public facilities, managed county property, performed election-related duties, and made other decisions affecting the county. A Midland County voter and taxpayer challenged the districts under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The trial court ordered the commissioners to adopt districts with substantially equal populations. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that neither state nor federal law required population-based districts. The Texas Supreme Court then ruled that the existing scheme was invalid under the Texas and Federal Constitutions, but said a new plan could consider factors besides population, including geography, road mileage, taxable values, land area, and the number of qualified voters. The United States Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the Equal Protection Clause required substantially equal population in districts electing this local governing body.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the Texas Supreme Court’s decision.

Holding

Yes. The Texas decision presented a final federal question, and no independent and adequate state ground barred review.

Reasoning

The Texas Supreme Court had invalidated the existing districting arrangement, but it also expressly held that neither the Texas nor Federal Constitution required population to be the sole basis for the new districts. That ruling rejected the petitioner’s federal claim for population equality and therefore was not insulated from review by an independent state-law ground.

The judgment was sufficiently final because the Texas Supreme Court contemplated no further proceedings in Texas courts. Although the Commissioners Court still had to create a new plan, the legal rule governing that redistricting—whether population had to control—was conclusively decided.

Issue #2

Whether the Equal Protection Clause applies the one-person, one-vote principle to elections for local governmental bodies.

Holding

Yes. When a State provides for the election of local officials from districts, it must protect each qualified voter’s right to an equally weighted vote.

Reasoning

The Fourteenth Amendment reaches state action in every form, including action taken through counties, cities, towns, and other political subdivisions. A local government is an instrument of the State and may no more deny equal protection than it may violate any other constitutional guarantee.

Reynolds v. Sims held that votes for state legislators may not be diluted through districts of substantially unequal population. The same injury occurs when voters elect members of a local governing body from districts with radically different populations: voters in smaller districts possess more electoral influence than voters in larger ones.

The fact that a properly apportioned state legislature created or authorized the local arrangement does not cure the inequality. States frequently delegate significant policymaking authority to local representative bodies, and equal protection applies when that delegated power is exercised through elections.

Issue #3

Whether Midland County’s Commissioners Court could be apportioned using substantially unequal districts because its functions were allegedly administrative, judicial, or especially rural in character.

Holding

No. Because the Commissioners Court exercised general governmental powers over the entire county, its single-member districts could not vary substantially from equal population.

Reasoning

The Court declined to make the constitutional rule turn on formal labels such as legislative, executive, administrative, or judicial. Local governing bodies commonly perform a mix of functions, and Midland County’s Commissioners Court made consequential decisions across that range.

The Commissioners Court had broad authority affecting all county residents. It taxed property countywide, issued bonds, adopted the county budget, provided welfare and public facilities, maintained buildings, set school-district boundaries, and made choices about roads, development, and services. Its decision not to exercise one of those powers could also affect all citizens.

The Court reserved the question whether a genuinely special-purpose body, whose functions disproportionately affect a defined group, might be apportioned differently. But Midland County’s court was not such a body: it possessed general governmental authority throughout the county, including authority affecting both urban and rural residents.

Accordingly, the Constitution permits no substantial population disparity in single-member districts for a local body with general governmental powers over its entire jurisdiction. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with that rule.

Dissents

Justice Harlan

Reasoning

Justice Harlan would have dismissed the writ. In his view, the Texas Supreme Court’s judgment rested on an adequate state constitutional ground, which ordinarily prevents Supreme Court review. He also believed the judgment was not final under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 because substantial discretionary redistricting work remained, and the Commissioners Court might choose a population-based plan that would leave the petitioner no federal complaint.

On the merits, Justice Harlan objected to extending Reynolds v. Sims to local government. He continued to believe that reapportionment was a political question beyond the federal judiciary’s proper constitutional role, and he saw none of the claimed practical necessity that had been invoked to justify intervention in state-legislative apportionment cases.

He stressed that local governments are state-created bodies that state legislatures or state constitutional processes can reform. Extending federal judicial supervision from state legislatures to tens of thousands of highly diverse local entities, he warned, would impose a vast and unmanageable burden on the courts.

Justice Harlan also argued that local bodies often have specialized functions affecting some residents more directly than others. In Midland County, the Commissioners Court’s work primarily concerned rural roads and rural affairs, so rigid population equality could give urban residents control over a body in which rural residents had a greater practical stake. He believed localities should retain flexibility to structure representation around those functional realities.

Justice Fortas

Reasoning

Justice Fortas would have dismissed the writ as improvidently granted because Texas had already invalidated the extreme existing arrangement and directed the Commissioners Court to redraw the districts. He thought the Court should await Texas’s completed plan before deciding whether the resulting arrangement violated equal protection.

Justice Fortas agreed that local governments are subject to the Equal Protection Clause, but he rejected a single inflexible population-equality rule for every local governmental unit. In his view, Reynolds properly applied population equality to state legislatures because state legislators comprehensively affect citizens who stand in the same relation to that body; local units often do not operate that way.

He regarded Midland County’s Commissioners Court as functionally concentrated on rural concerns rather than as a general legislature. The City of Midland had its own government, while other county officials elected countywide performed many functions important to city residents. The Commissioners Court’s principal practical responsibilities, especially roads and rural services, fell more heavily on rural residents.

For Justice Fortas, equal protection required a realistic assessment of how a governmental body affected different groups, not mechanical numerical equality. Texas should have been allowed to eliminate the gross disparity while preserving a meaningful rural voice in a county institution on which rural residents especially depended.

Justice Stewart

Reasoning

Justice Stewart would have dismissed the writ for the jurisdictional and prudential reasons given by Justices Harlan and Fortas. He also agreed substantially with Justice Fortas’s functional objection to the majority’s rigid rule for local governmental bodies.

Justice Stewart reiterated his disagreement with Reynolds v. Sims itself. He believed that the apportionment of both state legislatures and local governments involves political and institutional judgments too complex to be constitutionalized through a simple population-arithmetic rule.