One-Man, One-Vote, Locally

State legislatures got the one-man, one-vote reapportionment treatment from the Supreme Court four years ago. Last week the court used the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment to extend one-man, one-vote to city, town and county legislatures as well.

Looking askance at the voting districts of Midland County, Texas, Justice Byron White spoke for a 5-to-3 majority. "The equal- protection clause," he said, "reaches the exercise of state power however manifested, whether exercised directly or through municipal subdivisions of the state. If voters residing in oversize districts are denied their constitutional right to participate in the election of state legislators, precisely the same kind of deprivation occurs when the members of a city council, school board, or county governing board are elected from districts of substantially unequal population."

In the case of Midland, a member of the commissioners court was elected from each of four districts*, but the one who represented almost all of the city of Midland had many times as many constituents as the three rural representatives put together. As a Midland resident, Mayor Hank Avery objected, and filed suit. Since the commissioners were regarded as the general ruling body of the county by the Supreme Court majority, it had no hesitation in halting the rural overrepresentation.

Dramatic & Chaotic. It did note, however, that a different conclusion might be reached in the case of "a special-purpose unit of government assigned the performance of functions affecting definable groups of constituents more than other constituents." If, for instance, the commissioners in Midland had been concerned only with rural roadbuilding, apportionment "in ways which give greater influence to the citizens most affected" might be permissible. The court also recalled two of its decisions last term (TIME, June 2): one, citing the "basically appointive" nature of a county board of education, approved its selection by delegates elected from districts of unequal population; the other upheld a plan that gave each of seven unequal districts a resident city councilman but required that they be elected by a citywide ballot.

Such limitations could significantly cut down the number of legislative bodies affected by the court's new decision, but government experts estimated that 20,000 local units would still be involved. Some had already adjusted districting after the state-legislature decision, but many have not. The aftermath of Avery v. Midland County will probably be as dramatic--and chaotic--as was the aftermath of the initial one-man, one-vote decision, particularly since the court again chose not to specify how close to the equal-population ideal a districting plan must come to be acceptable.

*A fifth was elected countywide.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.