# Bush v. Martin > District Court, S.D. Texas · January 5, 1966 · 251 F. Supp. 484 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745444 ## Case - **Full name:** George H. W. BUSH Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. Crawford MARTIN, Secretary of State of the State of Texas, John Connally, Governor of the State of Texas, Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Et Al., Defendants - **Court:** District Court, S.D. Texas - **Decided:** January 5, 1966 - **Citations:** 251 F. Supp. 484; 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7877 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ingraham - **Judges:** Noel, Brown, Ingraham - **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745444 ## Opinion text INGRAHAM, District Judge (concurring specially): I concur in the result and expressly approve all of that portion of the court’s *518 opinion under the' heading of “WHAT OF THE FUTURE?” From the Supreme Court decisions, the only standard is equality of population. The duty to redistrict was upon the legislature. The variation of 9.7% may not be invidiously discriminatory, although better results could have been achieved. I cannot reject, as the court’s opinion does, plaintiffs’ claim of regional gerrymandering but believe, as a matter of law, that it is immaterial. The legislature had before it several plans (bills proposed by Representatives Richardson, Cahoon, Eckhardt, Sherman, Johnson and the Spears-Kennard Substitute), any of which would have been a better bill than the one enacted. H.B. 67 was the most discriminatory plan presented; The results achieved by it were no accident. Such results could be obtained only through great labor and willful conniving. In Brother Noel’s opinion to follow, he observes “The Legislature is left to do so without chart or compass or any standard by which to gauge its end product, except the population standard which heretofore has been constitutionally applied” and further on poses the question “How can this duty be correctly discharged unless this Court furnishes the additional constitutionally required standards which will teach the Legislature and executive officials what in H.B. 67 should be improved and, if so, how it should be improved ?” But what chart, compass or guidelines do we need to achieve fundamental equity and fairness except fundamental equity and fairness. H.B. 67 does not give it to us. I repeat that H.B. 67 was the most discriminatory plan presented and that any of the other plans presented would have been better. It not only had the greatest variance in population figures but also had the most glaring regional gerrymandering. As an example of what could have been done, we need only look to the Spears-Kennard Substitute to the bill. In it, no district varied in excess of 2% and only seven varied more than 1 %. The district lines were fairly drawn and the districts compact. It did not place northern Dallas County in the same district with the far West Texas counties of Dickens and Kent, near Lubbock. It did not place the southern portions of Dallas and Tarrant Counties in a district running almost to Harris County. It did not place portions of Bexar County in a district running to within 15 miles of the New Mexico state border. It did not divide any county having a population of less than 416,508, the average figure. Responsibility for redistricting rests with the legislature. Responsibility for the quality of the legislature rests with the people. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745444. Public record. Not legal advice.