house reapportionment plan held to be unconstitutional because legislature failed to justify substantial crossing of county lines
How later courts described this case
- house reapportionment plan held to be unconstitutional because legislature failed to justify substantial crossing of county lines
- court affirmed lower court decision rejecting redistricting plans that were drafted with sole objective of obtaining low percentages of total *25 deviation, with no effort made to consider other nonnumerical criteria
- state’s redistricting plan held invalid because it violated state constitution’s prohibition against dividing counties; court would not “sanction a single county line violation [unless it was] shown to be necessary to avoid a breach of federal constitutional requirements”
- "the unusual single deviation in Brown may well be inapplicable elsewhere"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BROCK, Justice,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I concur in the decision of the Court and in most of the majority opinion. However, I do not agree with suggestions in the opinion that in drawing legislative district lines there is any “necessity of maintaining the racial integrity of [a certain legislative district],” or that drawing a district line in a particular place may be required or justified in order “to prevent the dilution of minority voting strength.”
In my view, the Constitution of the nation and that of Tennessee are color-blind. It is not constitutionally permissible to discriminate in favor of black people any more than it is to discriminate against black people. It is my opinion that in drawing legislative district lines the race, color, religion, ethnic heritage, political persuasion, economic condition, or the like, of the voters or their incumbent representatives are totally irrelevant considerations.