Burns v. Richardson

Background

Residents and qualified voters of Honolulu sued, saying Hawaii's legislative map violated the Court's one-person, one-vote rules. The State Constitution gave the rural counties a fixed majority in the senate while Oahu held most people. The District Court first ordered a special convention process, then required the Legislature to pass an interim senate plan based on registered voters (H.B. 987). The Legislature passed H.B. 987; the District Court later disapproved it and ordered the convention route reinstated. Hawaii officials and legislators appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the interim plan, its use of registered-voter counts, and multi-member districts met the Equal Protection standard. The Supreme Court said courts should view the whole plan, let legislatures propose overall schemes, and that multi-member districts are not automatically invalid. On the record here, the Court found that using registered voters produced a distribution close enough to a permissible population base given Hawaii's large, fluctuating military and tourist populations. The Court set aside the District Court's orders and directed the lower court to adopt H.B. 987 and the existing house plan as the interim apportionment for the 1966 election, while retaining jurisdiction for further proceedings.

Real world impact

Hawaii's 1966 elections would go forward under the interim map, avoiding immediate special elections or a convention. The decision lets the Legislature and the courts continue to seek a permanent plan and allows future challenges if the interim plan proves constitutionally deficient.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Harlan and Stewart agreed with the outcome but emphasized different reasoning; Harlan rejected the Court's specific test for registered-voter use, and Stewart stressed flexibility in apportionment choice.