The opinion
BOYD, District Judge (concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority opinion in this case upholding the 1965 Apportionment Act of the State of Tennessee 1 except that I deem unconstitutional that portion of the Act which divides all counties entitled to two or more senators or representatives into single member districts. 2 Instead, I would require that the senators and representatives from such populous counties be elected on an *648 “at large” basis, thus creating multimember districts which are concurrent with existing county lines. Such a plan is similar to the plan heretofore approved in this case (referred to in the majority opinion as “The Court Approved Plan”). Moreover, the creation of multi-member districts quite recently has been validated expressly under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433 , 85 S.Ct. 498 , 13 L.Ed.2d 401 (1965); Davis v. Cameron, 238 F.Supp. 462 (D.Iowa 1965).
In my judgment, the creation of multi-district counties by the 1965 Apportionment Act only for a few of the more populous counties of the State, thus destroying their political integrity while maintaining the political integrity of all the other counties of the State, is unwarranted and unreasonable and invidiously discriminates against the citizens of the more populous counties. It does not comport, therefore, with the requirements of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As held by the United States Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 , 84 S.Ct. 1362 , 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), the preservation of traditional and historic political subdivisions is a legitimate end to be sought in the proper apportionment of senators and representatives in a State Legislature. Not only do such political subdivisions have historic significance to the people of this State, but more important they are charged with grave and direct responsibilities in the carrying out of State policies and programs. Moreover:
“Indiscriminate districting, without any regard for political subdivision * * * may be little more than an open invitation to partisan gerrymandering.” ( 377 U.S. at 578, 579 , 84 S.Ct. at 1390 )
Such, in my opinion, has been the effect of the carving up of the more populous counties of the State of Tennessee by the 1965 Apportionment Act.
Therefore, respectfully I dissent to this limited extent.
. 1965 Public Chapter No. 3, Extraordinary Session (84th General Assembly), Senate Bill No. 10, signed by the Governor on May 28, 1965.
. (I note in this regard that said portion of the Act is severable in that its invalidity does not affect the other provisions. See Section 13 of the Act.)