Mahan v. Howell
35 L. Ed. 2d 320, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 108, 410 U.S. 315 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Equal Protection Clause requires state legislative districts to be as nearly of equal population as is practicable, but it permits more flexibility and larger deviations from population equality than in congressional redistricting, so long as such deviations are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy, such as maintaining the integrity of political subdivision boundaries.
Facts:
- Following a state constitutional revision, the Virginia General Assembly enacted a reapportionment plan for its House of Delegates.
- The plan created a combination of single-member, multi-member, and floater districts.
- This plan resulted in a maximum population deviation of 16.4% between the most and least populated districts.
- The legislature's stated reason for these population variances was its policy of preserving the integrity of county and city boundaries, which it did for all but one county.
- For its State Senate plan, the General Assembly used census data to assign all naval personnel 'home-ported' at the U.S. Naval Station in Norfolk to a single senatorial district.
- This census data counted all personnel attached to ships docked in that district, regardless of where they actually resided with their families.
- Evidence showed that approximately 18,000 of the 36,700 personnel assigned to the district actually lived outside of it, creating a significant population malapportionment.
Procedural Posture:
- Suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the constitutionality of Virginia's House and Senate redistricting plans.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court was convened, and the suits were consolidated.
- The District Court entered an interlocutory order declaring the state's legislative reapportionment statutes unconstitutional.
- The court enjoined the state from holding elections under its plan and ordered the implementation of a court-devised plan.
- The Secretary of the State Board of Elections and the city of Virginia Beach, as appellants, filed a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state legislative apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation of 16.4%, justified by the state's rational policy of maintaining the integrity of its political subdivisions, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. A state legislative apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation of 16.4% does not violate the Equal Protection Clause when justified by the rational state policy of maintaining political subdivision integrity. The more stringent 'absolute equality' standard applied to congressional districting under Article I, § 2 does not apply to state legislative districting under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Citing Reynolds v. Sims, the Court affirmed that state legislative apportionment allows for broader latitude, and some deviations from strict population equality are permissible if based on legitimate considerations like effectuating a rational state policy. The Court found that Virginia's policy of maintaining the integrity of political subdivision lines to ensure representation for local government matters was a rational one. While the 16.4% deviation 'may well approach tolerable limits,' it was not unconstitutional, especially when contrasted with larger deviations struck down in prior cases. However, regarding the Senate plan, the District Court was justified in creating an interim multi-member district because the state's reliance on flawed census data for military personnel created significant and discriminatory malapportionment.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes, for the House of Delegates plan. The legislative apportionment plan with a 16.4% deviation violates the Equal Protection Clause. The dissent argues that the paramount goal of reapportionment, whether state or congressional, must be precise population equality. There should not be two different constitutional standards; the 'as nearly as practicable' standard applies to both. Any deviation from this standard must be justified by a showing of governmental necessity, not mere rationality. Virginia failed to meet this high burden of proof. The dissent notes that the District Court created a plan with a much smaller deviation while only minimally disrupting county lines, proving the state's 16.4% deviation was not necessary. Furthermore, the state's plan contained a 'built-in bias' that systematically underrepresented the suburbs of Northern Virginia, which constitutes impermissible discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision formally established a two-tiered approach to reapportionment, creating a more relaxed standard for state legislative districting compared to the strict standard for congressional districting. By allowing 'rational state policies' like preserving county lines to justify significant population deviations, the Court gave states much more flexibility. This precedent makes it more difficult to challenge state legislative maps on the basis of moderate population inequality, shifting the focus from achieving mathematical precision to evaluating the legitimacy of the state's justifications for the variance.
