Mahan v. Howell
Headline: Virginia’s 1971 House map is upheld, allowing many county and city boundary lines despite significant population deviations; court also affirms a temporary multimember Senate district to correct Navy personnel miscounts before elections.
Holding: The Court held the House apportionment constitutional because preserving county and city boundaries can justify limited population deviations, and it affirmed the district court’s temporary multimember Senate district remedy addressing Navy personnel miscounts.
- Allows Virginia to keep its 1971 House map despite sizable population variances.
- Temporary multimember Senate district affects Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and Navy households.
- Lower court retains power so further challenges or legislative changes remain possible.
Summary
Background
The Virginia General Assembly adopted new 1971 plans for its House of Delegates and Senate. Citizens and local plaintiffs challenged the House plan for producing substantial population inequalities across districts and using multimember and floater districts; they challenged the Senate plan for splitting Norfolk and misassigning Navy personnel to a single district. A three-judge federal district court found the House plan produced a maximum deviation of about 16.4% (plaintiffs argued it could be 23.6%) and issued its own remedy reducing deviations. The district court also combined three senatorial districts into one multimember district as an interim fix for census and timing problems.
Reasoning
The key question was whether Virginia could preserve county and city boundaries even when that choice produced sizeable differences in population between districts. The Court applied the standard that a State should make a good-faith effort to equalize population but may allow some deviations when they reasonably further a state policy. The majority concluded that Virginia’s consistent policy of keeping political subdivisions intact was a rational state interest and that the House plan’s deviations were within tolerable limits. The Court therefore reversed the district court as to the House plan. For the Senate, the Court affirmed the district court’s interim remedy because census counting of naval personnel produced special, time-sensitive distortions and the court’s temporary multimember district was an appropriate equitable fix before elections.
Real world impact
Virginia voters will, at least for now, vote under the legislature’s House map that keeps many county and city lines intact despite measurable population variance. Voters in Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and naval households are directly affected by the temporary Senate district. The lower court retained jurisdiction, so future litigation or a new legislative plan could change these arrangements.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan (joined by Justices Douglas and Marshall) agreed with the Senate remedy but dissented about the House plan, arguing the deviations were too large and the State failed to justify them; he would have left the district court’s invalidation in place.
Opinions in this case:
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?