This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Avery v. Midland County | |
---|---|
Argued November 14, 1967 Decided April 1, 1968 | |
Full case name | Avery v. Midland County, et al. |
Citations | 390 U.S. 474 ( more ) 88 S. Ct. 1114; 20 L. Ed. 2d 45 |
Case history | |
Prior | Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas |
Holding | |
The Court struck down local governmental districts inequality based their decision on the principle of "one man, one vote." | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | White, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan |
Dissent | Harlan |
Dissent | Fortas |
Dissent | Stewart |
Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Equal Protection Clause | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) |
Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968), is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that local government districts had to be roughly equal in population.
Having already held in 1965 in Reynolds v. Sims that disparities in legislative districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court applied the same logic to local government districts for bodies which also have broad policy-making functions.
The case was brought by Henry Clifton Avery, Jr., more commonly known as Hank Avery, who was Mayor of the City of Midland, Texas. He challenged the districting scheme for the Commissioners Court of Midland County, a five-member county commission with four Commissioners elected in single-member districts and the County Judge elected at-large. [1] One Commissioner's district, which included almost all the City of Midland, had a population of 67,906, according to 1963 estimates. The others, all rural areas, had populations respectively, of about 852; 414; and 828.
Avery brought his case in Texas District Court in Midland. Three of the four commissioners testified at trial that population was not a major factor in the districting process. The trial court ruled for petitioner that each district under the State's constitutional apportionment standard should have "substantially the same number of people." An intermediate appellate court reversed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed that judgment, holding that under the Federal and State Constitutions the districting scheme was impermissible "for the reasons stated by the trial court." It held, however, that the work actually done by the County Commissioners "disproportionately concerns the rural areas" and that such factors as "number of qualified voters, land areas, geography, miles of county roads, and taxable values" could justify apportionment otherwise than on a basis of substantially equal populations.
The five justices who struck down local district inequality based their decision on the precedent in Reynolds v. Sims. Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Byron White said, "In a word, institutions of local government have always been a major aspect of our system, and their responsible and responsive operation is today of increasing importance to the quality of life of more and more of our citizens. We therefore see little difference, in terms of the application of the Equal Protection Clause and of the principles of Reynolds v. Sims, between the exercise of state power through legislatures and its exercise by elected officials in the cities, towns, and counties."
In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II asserted that the Writ of Certiorari to the Texas Supreme Court was improvidently granted in that the decision was not final, since the Texas court had ordered the county to redistrict. He also resumed his objections to the line of cases started with Reynolds v. Sims saying, "I continue to think that these adventures of the Court in the realm of political science are beyond its constitutional powers, for reasons set forth at length in my dissenting opinion in Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 589 et seq."
Justices Fortas and Stewart agreed with Justice Harlan that the Writ of Certiorari was improvidently granted as the decision was not yet final, but disagreed as to their reasoning on the merits of the case.
Justice Thurgood Marshall took no part in the deliberation of the case.
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases. The court summarized its Baker holding in a later decision as follows: "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of a State Legislature in designing the geographical districts from which representatives are chosen either for the State Legislature or for the Federal House of Representatives.". The court had previously held in Gomillion v. Lightfoot that districting claims over racial discrimination could be brought under the Fifteenth Amendment.
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population. Along with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of "one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies.
"One person, one vote" or "one vote, one value" is a slogan used to advocate for the principle of equal representation in voting. This slogan is used by advocates of democracy and political equality, especially with regard to electoral reforms like universal suffrage, direct elections, and proportional representation.
Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207 (1935), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it cannot exert certiorari jurisdiction over a case in which there is an adequate and independent state law ground for the state court's final judgment.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.
The 2005 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 3, 2005, and concluded October 1, 2006. The table illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
The 2002 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 7, 2002, and concluded October 5, 2003. The table illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
The 2001 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 1, 2001, and concluded October 6, 2002. The table illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down twelve per curiam opinions during its 2002 term, which began October 7, 2002 and concluded October 5, 2003.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.
Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946), was a United States Supreme Court case. Writing for a 4–3 plurality, Justice Felix Frankfurter held that the federal judiciary had no power to interfere with malapportioned Congressional districts. The Court held that the Elections Clause in Article I, section IV of the U.S. Constitution left to the legislature of each state the authority to establish the time, place, and manner of holding elections for Congressional Representatives, and that only Congress could determine whether individual state legislatures had fulfilled their responsibility to secure fair representation for citizens.
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), was a case in which United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may not be denied the right to appeal by inability to pay for a trial transcript.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2001 term, which began October 1, 2001, and concluded October 6, 2002.
The 2011 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 3, 2011, and concluded September 30, 2012. The table illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
The 2013 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 7, 2013, and concluded October 5, 2014. The table illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
The 2017 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 2, 2017, and concluded September 30, 2018. The table below illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2017 term, which began October 2, 2017, and concluded September 30, 2018.
The 2021 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 4, 2021, and concluded October 2, 2022. The table below illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
The 2022 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 3, 2022, and concluded October 1, 2023. The table below illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
A grant of appellate review is dismissed as improvidently granted (DIG) when a court with discretionary appellate jurisdiction later decides that it should not review the case. Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States occasionally grants a petition of the writ of certiorari, only to later DIG the case.