Whitcomb v. Chavis
29 L. Ed. 2d 363, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 125, 403 U.S. 124 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A multi-member legislative districting scheme is not unconstitutional per se, and to prove it invidiously discriminates against a racial or political minority in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, plaintiffs must show they were denied access to the political process, not just that they lack proportional representation.
Facts:
- The state of Indiana used multi-member districts to elect some of its state legislators.
- Marion County, which includes Indianapolis, was a single multi-member district that elected 8 state senators and 15 state representatives at large.
- A geographically concentrated community of predominantly poor African American residents, with distinct legislative interests, resided in an area of Marion County known as the 'Center Township ghetto.'
- Residents of this ghetto area predominantly voted for the Democratic party.
- In five general elections between 1960 and 1968, the Republican party won four times, sweeping all or nearly all of Marion County's legislative seats.
- During this period, the number of legislators who resided in the ghetto area was significantly lower than the area's proportion of the county's total population.
Procedural Posture:
- Six Indiana residents sued state officials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, challenging the constitutionality of the multi-member state legislative district in Marion County.
- A three-judge district court was convened to hear the case.
- The district court held for the plaintiffs, finding that the multi-member district invidiously diluted the voting strength of African American residents in the 'Center Township ghetto.'
- As a remedy, the district court disestablished the Marion County multi-member district and ordered a statewide reapportionment into single-member districts.
- The State of Indiana appealed the district court's final judgment directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 an at-large, multi-member state legislative district for Marion County, Indiana, operate to unconstitutionally minimize or cancel out the voting strength of African American residents in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. The Marion County multi-member district does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The failure of a minority group to elect legislators in proportion to its population is not, by itself, sufficient to prove unconstitutional vote dilution. There was no evidence that the multi-member district was created or operated as a purposeful device for discrimination, nor was there proof that ghetto residents were denied access to the political system by being prevented from registering, voting, participating in party affairs, or being slated as candidates. The minority group's lack of representation emerges more as a function of losing elections than of a built-in constitutional bias in the districting system.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
No. The judgment should be reversed, but the Court's entire line of 'one person, one vote' jurisprudence, which created this 'political thicket,' is constitutionally unsound. The Court's attempt to equalize 'voting power' is a futile, non-justiciable exercise based on a flawed majoritarian philosophy not found in the Constitution. The case should be dismissed because courts should not be in the business of restructuring state electoral processes at all.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes. The multi-member districting scheme for Marion County unconstitutionally minimizes the voting strength of an identifiable racial minority. The District Court's findings proved that the system's practical effect was to cancel out the votes of the black community, which constitutes a racial gerrymander. Under Fortson and Burns, a districting plan is unconstitutional if it operates, 'designedly or otherwise,' to dilute the voting strength of a racial element, and the evidence of disproportionate representation and political party control in this case met that burden.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raised the bar for plaintiffs challenging multi-member districts on vote dilution grounds. It clarified that a lack of proportional representation is insufficient; challengers must prove a denial of access to the political process itself, such as barriers to registration, voting, or candidate slating. The ruling effectively made it much harder to invalidate at-large election systems, shifting the focus from discriminatory results (disproportionate outcomes) to evidence of discriminatory intent or exclusion from political participation. This precedent heavily influenced later voting rights litigation, including the development of the 'totality of the circumstances' test under the Voting Rights Act.
