Judges: MARK WHITE, Attorney General of Texas
Filed Date: 5/30/1981
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Honorable Bob Bullock Comptroller of Public Accounts L.B.J. Building Austin, Texas 78774
Re: Constitutionality of SB-800, Senate Redistricting Bill
Dear Mr. Bullock:
You ask us several questions in connection with Senate Bill 800, which redistricts state senatorial positions. Your questions are directed at what the Texas Legislature may do in drawing up a reapportionment plan. They do not require us to determine the effect of the reapportionment plan which the Senate has enacted, or whether the Senate could have developed an alternate plan with particular characteristics. In any case, such inquiries would involve the investigation and resolution of fact questions, which cannot be done in the opinion process.
A brief discussion of the main principles governing reapportionment will provide a useful context for our answers to your questions. In Reynolds v. Sims,
The Supreme Court has said that an apportionment scheme, on particular facts, might operate to minimize or cancel out the strength of racial or political elements of the population. Fortson v. Dorsey,
The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 adds another standard against which a reapportionment plan must be measured. It prohibits any state from denying or abridging the right of any United States citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority.
We turn to your first question:
1. TEX. CONST. art.
3 , sec.28 , directs the Legislature to apportion the State into Senatorial districts agreeable to the provisions of Section 25 of Article 3. Federal law requires reapportionment to be based on equal population among districts, within certain allowable deviations. Within these allowable deviations, must the Legislature take into account the number of qualified electors residing within each district as dictated by TEX. CONST. art.3 , sec.25 ?
Article
Your second question is as follows:
2. May an apportionment plan split counties into two or more Senatorial districts when an alternative plan can or could be drawn which maintains county integrity?
No provision in Texas or federal law invalidates an apportionment plan which splits counties into two or more senatorial districts or requires a plan to maintain county integrity. Article
Your third question is as follows:
3. When a county has sufficient population to justify one or more Senatorial districts entirely within that county's boundaries, must an apportionment plan provide that county with the maximum number of full Senatorial districts which can be contained within the county?
We have neither found, nor have we been directed to any provision of state or federal law which requires a county to be given maximum number of full senatorial districts which can be contained within it.
Your fourth question is as follows:
4. May an apportionment plan combine primarily rural counties with urban areas in a single Senatorial district, when alternative plans can or could be adopted which preserve rural communities of interest?
No state or federal law prohibits the combination of rural and urban areas in a single senatorial district. The Supreme Court has stated that `economic and other group interests' are insufficient to justify deviation from strict population equality. Reynolds v. Sims, supra at 579-80. See Kirkpatrick v. Presler,
In Gumfory v. Hansford County Commissioners Court,
You next ask:
5. Because the United States Bureau of the Census has stated that the population figures for minority groups are `provisional', pending the outcome of federal court litigation challenging the validity of these figures, may the Legislature reapportion into districts on the basis of these figures?
Census figures have been challenged in federal court as representing an undercount of blacks and hispanics. In Young v. Klutznick,
In the past, courts have acknowledged that not all inhabitants are counted in the decennial census. Gaffney v. Cummings,
Article
Your next question is as follows:
6. Because the guidelines for submitting a reapportionment plan to the United States Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act specify that recent election return data be included in the submission, may the Legislature reapportion Senatorial districts without considering this data?
Recent election return data is among those items generally required to be submitted in connection with redistricting plans. See
Your final question is as follows:
7. At least one Senator has expressed his opinion that the reapportionment plan has been drafted to intentionally discriminate against his political interest. May a reapportionment plan adopted by the Legislature have either the purpose and/or effect of discriminating against any recognizable political interest?
A reapportionment plan may not have the purpose or effect of diluting the voting strength of linguistic or racial minorities.
A reapportionment plan is not necessarily in violation of the equal protection clause if it seeks to protect incumbents. White v. Weiser,
An apportionment plan may split counties into two or more senatorial districts when an alternative plan could be drawn maintaining county integrity.
A county need not be given the maximum number of full senatorial districts which can be contained within it.
An apportionment plan may combine primarily rural counties with urban areas in a single senatorial district.
The legislature may reapportion on the basis of the recent census figures.
No law requires the legislature to consider in drafting its reapportionment plan the recent election return data required to be submitted to the Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act.
A reapportionment plan need not protect the districts of incumbents, nor must it guarantee any group legislative seats in proportion to its voting strength.
Very truly yours,
Mark White Attorney General of Texas
John W. Fainter, Jr. First Assistant Attorney General
Richard E. Gray, III Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Susan L. Garrison Assistant Attorney General
Kelly v. Bumpers , 340 F. Supp. 568 ( 1972 )
Young v. Klutznick , 497 F. Supp. 1318 ( 1980 )
White v. Weiser , 93 S. Ct. 2348 ( 1973 )
Fortson v. Dorsey , 85 S. Ct. 498 ( 1965 )
Gaffney v. Cummings , 93 S. Ct. 2321 ( 1973 )
City of Philadelphia v. Klutznick , 503 F. Supp. 663 ( 1980 )
Mauzy v. Legislative Redistricting Board , 471 S.W.2d 570 ( 1971 )
Smith v. Craddick , 471 S.W.2d 375 ( 1971 )
White v. Regester , 93 S. Ct. 2332 ( 1973 )
Connor Et Al. v. Waller, Governor of Mississippi, Et Al. , 95 S. Ct. 2003 ( 1975 )
Reynolds v. Sims , 84 S. Ct. 1362 ( 1964 )
Burns v. Richardson , 86 S. Ct. 1286 ( 1966 )
Kirkpatrick v. Preisler , 89 S. Ct. 1225 ( 1969 )
Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action at the ... , 97 S. Ct. 1047 ( 1977 )
Gumfory v. Hansford County Commissioners Court , 561 S.W.2d 28 ( 1977 )