Davis v. Mann
Headline: Court strikes down Virginia’s 1962 legislative districting for giving underrepresentation to fast-growing counties and cities, orders the state to fix unequal voting power and allows time before the next elections.
Holding:
- Requires Virginia to redraw legislative districts by population.
- Increases voting power for Arlington, Fairfax, and Norfolk residents.
- Gives the state time to enact a lawful plan before elections.
Summary
Background
A group of Virginia residents, taxpayers, and qualified voters from Arlington and Fairfax Counties, joined by voters from Norfolk, sued state election officials challenging the 1962 plan for assigning seats in the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates. They said the plan gave their communities far fewer legislators than their populations warranted and that their votes were therefore diluted in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which bars unequal treatment of voters).
Reasoning
The core question was whether both houses of a state legislature must be apportioned substantially by population. The Court held that they must and found Virginia’s 1962 plan fell short. The opinion relied on census figures showing large disparities: Arlington had about .61 of its ideal senatorial representation, Fairfax about .70, and Norfolk about .65; the largest senate district-to-district population ratio was 2.65-to-1, and the house ratio was 4.36-to-1. The Court rejected defenses based on military populations, balancing urban and rural power, and comparisons to the Federal Electoral College, and affirmed the federal trial court’s finding that the plan violated equal protection.
Real world impact
The decision requires Virginia to create legislative districts that give substantially equal representation by population and gives the General Assembly time to act before the next contested elections. If the legislature fails to adopt a lawful plan, the federal court retained jurisdiction to provide relief so elections will not be held under the unconstitutional scheme.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Clark and Justice Stewart wrote separate opinions concurring in the judgment; Justice Stewart emphasized that a plan with no rational basis violates equal protection. Justice Harlan dissented (see opinion note).
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?