Hadley v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City

397 U.S. 50, 90 S. Ct. 791, 25 L. Ed. 2d 45, 1970 U.S. LEXIS 65

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: February 25, 1970
• Docket: 37
• Status: Published

Opinions

Mr. Justice Black

delivered the delivered theopinion of the Court. This case involves the extent to which the Fourteenth Amendment and the “one man, one vote” principle apply in the election of local governmental officials. Appellants are residents and taxpayers of the Kansas City School District, one of eight separate school' districts that have combined to form the Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City. Under Missouri law separate school districts may vote by referendum to establish a consolidated junior college district and elect six trustees to conduct and manage the necessary affairs of that district.¹ The state law also provides that these trustees shall be apportioned among the separate school districts on the basis of “school enumeration,” defined as the number of persons between the ages of six and 20 years, who reside in each district.² In the case of the Kansas City School District this apportionment plan results in the election of three trustees, or 50% of the total number, from that district. Since that district contains approximately 60% of the total school enumeration in the junior college district,³ appellants brought suit claiming that their right to vote for trustees was being unconstitutionally diluted in violation of the, Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the suit, stating that the “one man, one vote” principle was not applicable in this case. 432 S. W. 2d 328 (1968). We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal, 393 U. S. 1115 (1969), and for the reasons set forth below we reverse and hold that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the trustees of this junior college district be apportioned in a manner that does not deprive any voter of his right to have his own vote given as much weight, as far as is practicable, as that of any other voter in the junior college district.

In Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 (1964), we held that the Constitution requires that “as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.” Id., at 7-8. Because of this requirement we struck down a Georgia statute which allowed glaring discrepancies among the populations in that State’s congressional districts. In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (1964), and the companion cases,⁴ we considered state laws that had apportioned state legislatures in a way that again showed glaring discrepancies in the number of people who lived in different legislative districts. In an elaborate opinion in Reynolds we called attention to prior cases indicating that a qualified voter has a constitutional right to vote in elections without having his vote wrongfully denied, debased, or diluted. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371 (1880); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651 (1884); United States v. Mosley, 238 U. S. 383 (1915); Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347 (1915); Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268 (1939); United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299 (1941). Applying the basic principle of Wesberry, we therefore held that the various state apportionment schemes denied some voters the right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to have their votes given the same weight as that of other voters. Finally, in Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. S. 474 (1968), we applied this same principle to the election of Texas county commissioners, holding that a qualified voter in a local election also has constitutional right to have his vote counted with substantially the same weight as that of any other voter a case where the elected officials exercised “general governmental powers over the entire geographic area served by the body.” Id., at 485.

case argue that the junior college trustees exercised general governmental powers over the entire district and that under Avery the State was thus required to apportion the trustees according to popula-on an equal basis, as far as practicable. Appellants that since the trustees can levy and collect taxes, bonds with certain restrictions, hire and fire teachers, contracts, collect fees, supervise and discipline stu-pass on petitions to annex school districts, acquire property by condemnation, and in general manage the operations of the junior college,⁵ their powers are equiv-for apportionment purposes, to those exercised by county commissioners in Avery. We feel that these while not fully as broad as those of the Midland Commissioners,⁶ certainly show that the trustees perforin important governmental functions within the districts, and we think these powers are general enough and have sufficient impact throughout the district to justify the conclusion that the principle which we applied in Avery should also be applied here.

This Court has consistently held in a long series of cases,⁷ that in situations involving elections, the States are required to insure that each person’s vote counts as much, insofar as it is practicable, as any other person’s. We have applied this principle in congressional elections, state legislative elections, and local elections. The consistent theme of those decisions is that the right to vote in an election is protected by the United States Constitution against dilution or debasement. While the particular offices involved in these cases have varied, in each case a constant factor is the decision of the government to have citizens participate individually by ballot in the selection of certain people who carry out governmental functions. Thus in the case now before us, while the office of junior college trustee differs in certain respects from those offices considered in prior cases, it is exactly the same in the one crucial factor — these officials are elected by popular vote.

I When a court is asked to decide whether a State is ¡required by the Constitution to give each qualified voter I the same power in an election open to all, there is no dis-I cernible, valid reason why constitutional distinctions I should be drawn on the basis of the purpose of the elec-one person’s vote is given less weight through ”j unequal apportionment, his right to equal voting partid- j pation is impaired just as much when he votes for a school | board member as when he votes for a state legislator, f While there are differences in the powers of different f officials, the crucial consideration is the right of each I qualified voter to participate on an equal footing in the j election process. It should be remembered that in cases j like this one we are asked by voters to insure that they | are given equal treatment, and from their perspective the I harm from unequal treatment is the same in any election, | regardless of the officials selected. *4

a election were to be the determining factor in deciding whether voters are entitled equal voting power, courts would be faced with the difficult job of distinguishing between various elections. cannot readily.perceive judicially manageable stand-to aid in such a task. It might be suggested that apportionment is required only in “important” elections, but good judgment and common sense tell that what might be a vital election to one voter well be a routine one to another. In some in-the election of a local sheriff may be far more important than the election of a United States Senator. there is any way of determining the importance of a particular governmental official, we think the of the State to select that official by popular is a strong enough indication that the choice is an one. This is so because in our country pop-election has traditionally been the method followed government by the people is most desired.

we distinguish for appor-purposes between elections for “legislative” and those for “administrative” officers. Such suggestion would leave courts with an equally unman-principle since be classified in the neat categories favored by texts,” Avery, supra, at 482, and it must also be rejected. We therefore hold today that as a general whenever a state or local government decides to persons by popular election to perform governmental functions, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that each qualified must be given an equal opportunity to participate that election, and when members of an elected are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials. It is course possible that there might be some case in which State elects certain functionaries whose duties are so removed from normal governmental activities and disproportionately affect different groups that a popu-election in compliance with Reynolds, supra, might not be required, but certainly we see nothing in the present case that indicates that the activities of these trustees fit in that category. Education has traditionally been a vital governmental function, and these trustees, whose election the State has opened to all qualified voters, are governmental officials in every relevant sense of that term.

In this particular case the man, one ciple is to some extent already reflected in the Missouri statute. That act provides that if no one or more of the component school districts has 33%% or more of the total enumeration of the junior college district, then all six trustees are elected at large. If, however, one or more districts has between 33%% and 50% of the total enumeration, each such district elects two trustees and the rest are elected at large from the remaining districts. Similarly, if one district has between 50% and 66%% of the enumeration it elects three trustees, and if one district has more than 66%% it elects four trustees.⁸ This scheme thus allocates increasingly more trustees to large districts as they represent an increasing proportion of the total enumeration.

statutory scheme reflects to some extent a principle of equal voting power, it does so in a way that does not comport with constitutional requirements. This is so because the Act necessarily results in a systematic discrimination against voters in the more populous school districts. This discrimination occurs because whenever a large district’s percentage of the total enumeration falls within a certain percentage range it is always allocated the number of trustees corresponding the bottom of that range. Unless a particular large district has exactly 33%%■, 50%, or 66%% of the total enumeration it will always have proportionally fewer trustees than the small districts. As has been pointed out, in the case of the Kansas City School District approximately 60% of the total enumeration entitles that district to only 50% of the trustees. Thus while voters large school districts may frequently have less effective voting power than residents of small districts, they can never have more. Such built-in discrimination against voters in large districts cannot be sustained as a sufficient compliance with the constitutional mandate that each person’s vote count as much as another’s, as far as practicable. Consequently Missouri cannot allocate the college trustees according to the statutory formula employed in this case.⁹ We would be faced with a dif-question if the deviation presented in this case resulted from a plan that not contain a built-in bias in favor of small districts, rather from the inherent mathematical complications equally apportioning a small number of trustees among a limited number of component districts. We said before that mathematical exactitude is not required, Wesberry, supra, at 18, Reynolds, supra, at 577, a plan that does not automatically discriminate in favor of certain districts is.

In holding that the guarantee each voter applies in all elections of governmental officials, we do not feel that the States will be inhibited finding ways to insure that legitimate political goals representation are achieved. We have previously up-against constitutional challenge an election scheme required that candidates be residents of certain districts that did not contain equal numbers of people. Dusch v. Davis, 387 U. S. 112 (1967). Since all the officials in that case were elected at large, the right of voter was given equal treatment.¹⁰ We have also that where a State chooses to select members of an official body by appointment rather than election, and that choice does not itself offend the Constitution, the fact that each official does not “represent” the same number of people does not deny those people equal protection of the laws. Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 U. S. 105 (1967); cf. Fortson v. Morris, 385 U. S. 231 (1966). And a State may, in certain cases, limit the a group or class of people. As we said before, “[vjiable local governments may need many innovations, numerous combinations of old and new devices, great flexibility in municipal arrangements to meet changing urban conditions. We see nothing in the Constitution to prevent experimentation.” Sailors, supra, at 110-111. But once a State has decided use the process of popular election and “once the class voters is chosen and their qualifications specified, we see no constitutional way by which equality of voting power may be evaded.” Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368, 381 (1963).

judgment below reversed and the case is remanded to the Missouri Supreme Court for proceedings not inconsistent with opinion.

and remanded.

1 Mo.Rev. Stat. §§ 178.800, 178.820 (Cum. Supp. 1967).

2 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 167.011 (Cum. Supp. 1967).

3 For the years 1963 through 1967, the actual eenumeration in the City School District varied between 63.55% and 59.49%. 38.

4 WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U. S. 633 (1964); Maryland Committee v. Tawes, 377 U. S. 656 (1964); Davis v. Mann, 377 U. S. 678 (1964); Roman v. Sincock, 377 U. S. 695 (1964); Lucas v. Colorado Gen. Assembly, 377 U. S. 713 (1964).

5 Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 167.161,171.011, 177.031, 177.041, 178.770, 178.850-178.890 (Cum. Supp. 1967).

6 The Midland County Commissioners establishedand main-the county jail, appointed numerous county officials, made built roads and bridges, administered the county welfare performed duties in connection with elections, set the county tax rate, issued bonds, adopted the county budget, built and ran hospitals, airports, and libraries, fixed school district boundaries, established a housing authority, and determined the election districts for county commissioners. Avery, supra, at 476-477.

7 Wesberry, supra; Reynolds, supra; cases cited n. 4 supra; Avery, supra; Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368 (1963); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73 (1966); Swann v. Adams, 385 U. S. 440 (1967).

8 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 178.820 (Cum. Supp. 1967).

9 There issome question in this case whether school enumeration figures, rather than actual population figures, can be used as a basis of apportionment. Cf. Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73, (1966). There is no need to time since, even if school enumeration is a permissible basis, the present statute fails to apportion trustees constitutionally.

10 The statute case are elected from component districts rather than at large must be residents of the district from which they are elected. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 178.820 (2) (Cum. Supp. 1967).