## Facts

- The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (“Metro”) was a regional special district in King County, Washington, created under state law to administer sewer services, operate a mass-transit system, and abate water pollution.
- Metro had authority to take actions needed to perform its duties, including setting rates, imposing taxes, exercising police powers, and condemning property.
- Metro was governed by a 42-member Metro Council.
- Twenty-four council seats were held automatically by certain elected city and county officials upon their election to their primary offices (ex officio membership).
- The remaining 18 council members were appointed under statutory and interlocal arrangements.
- The allocation of representation on the council produced substantial disparities in the number of constituents represented by different council members, leaving some King County voters with less effective representation than others.
- Plaintiffs (registered voters in King County) sued Metro and related defendants, alleging the council functioned as an elected governing body and that its composition violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s one-person, one-vote requirement.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, agreeing there was no genuine dispute of material fact.

## Issues

1. Is the Metro Council the type of governing body to which the Fourteenth Amendment’s one-person, one-vote requirement applies, even though many members serve ex officio and others are appointed?
2. If the requirement applies, does Metro’s method of selecting and allocating council seats unconstitutionally dilute the voting strength of some King County voters?
3. If a violation exists, what declaratory or injunctive relief should be ordered, and on what timetable?

## Decision

- The court held that Metro exercised general governmental powers in important areas of daily life, and its governing council was subject to the one-person, one-vote requirement.
- The court held that Metro’s council structure and allocation of representation violated the Equal Protection Clause because it did not provide substantially equal representation for voters across the affected population.
- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied defendants’ cross-motion.
- The court entered declaratory relief finding the existing selection and representation scheme unconstitutional and permitted time for state and local officials to design a constitutionally valid replacement while maintaining continuity of Metro’s services.

## Legal Principles

- When a local or regional entity exercises broad governmental powers (including taxing authority, police power, and eminent domain) and makes policy decisions affecting the public generally, its representative governing body must satisfy the Equal Protection Clause’s one-person, one-vote standard.
- A governing body may be treated as “elected” for one-person, one-vote purposes even if members obtain seats indirectly by virtue of election to other offices (ex officio service) and even if some seats are filled by appointment, where the body performs general governmental functions.
- Malapportionment that creates large disparities in population represented by members of a governing council constitutes unconstitutional vote dilution absent a constitutionally sufficient justification.
- Administrative convenience or claims of operational efficiency do not justify unequal weighting of citizens’ votes in a representative body exercising general governmental authority.
- Federal courts may issue declaratory and prospective relief and may allow a transition period so political branches can enact a compliant governance structure without disrupting essential public services.

## Conclusion

In *Cunningham v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle*, the district court ruled that Metro’s extensive governmental powers made its council subject to the Fourteenth Amendment’s one-person, one-vote rule, and that the council’s malapportioned, partly ex officio and partly appointed composition diluted the votes of certain King County residents; the court therefore granted summary judgment for the voters and ordered prospective relief with time for government officials to implement a constitutional replacement.


Cunningham v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 751 F. Supp. 885 (1990)