Burns v. Richardson - 384 U.S. 73, 86 S. Ct. 1286 (1966)

Rule:

The Equal Protection Clause does not require that at least one house of a bicameral state legislature consist of single-member legislative districts. Apportionment schemes including multi-member districts will constitute an invidious discrimination only if it can be shown that designedly or otherwise, a multi-member constituency apportionment scheme, under the circumstances of a particular case, would operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or political elements of the voting population.

Facts:

The Hawaii Constitution provided that three small counties elect 15 of 25 state senators, while the fourth county (Oahu), with 79% of the State's population, elects 10. Under an apportionment authorized by the Constitution, Oahu has been allocated 36 of the 51 seats in the state house of representatives, the representatives being elected from multi-member districts apportioned on the basis of the number of registered voters in each. Suit was brought in federal district court attacking the apportionment plan. The District Court held the senate but not the house apportionment unconstitutional and directed the legislature to submit to the voters the question of a convention to amend the constitution. On motion of intervening legislators, it modified its order to require the enactment of three statutes: (1) an interim senate apportionment plan, using registered voters as a basis, to be submitted to the court, for use in the 1966 election, (2) a constitutional amendment embodying pertinent provisions of the interim plan for submission to the voters at that election, and (3) submission to the electorate of the question of calling a constitutional convention. The senate apportionment plan adopted by the legislature allocated 19 of the 25 senators to Oahu on the basis of registered voters. The senators were to be elected from five multi-member districts. The District Court, while expressly approving the use of a registered voters basis, disapproved the plan because of the failure to create single-member districts, and reinstated its earlier order requiring immediate resort to the convention method. 

Issue:

Was the state apportionment plan unconstitutional for being violative of the Equal Protection Clause? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court vacated and remanded the order entered by the district court. The court held that 1965 Haw. Sess. Laws 281 and the then existing house apportionment together constituted an interim legislative apportionment, which was not shown to fall short of federal standards or to violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court ruled that the apportionment plan submitted by the legislature passed constitutional muster only because it produced a distribution of legislators not substantially different from that which would have resulted from the use of a permissible population basis. The court determined that the district court should maintain jurisdiction of the case to monitor the legislative proceedings and to take appropriate action in the event that a permanent reapportionment was not made.