## Facts

- Texas adopted a 1970 reapportionment plan for the Texas House of Representatives through the State Legislative Redistricting Board.
- The plan used multimember House districts in Dallas County and Bexar County and contained statewide population deviations (maximum 9.9%; average 1.82% from ideal).
- Voters challenged the plan under the Equal Protection Clause, alleging unconstitutional population deviations statewide and vote dilution of Black voters in Dallas County and Mexican-American voters in Bexar County.
- A three-judge federal district court invalidated the entire House plan, finding statewide population deviations unconstitutional and concluding the Dallas and Bexar multimember districts invidiously discriminated against racial or ethnic minorities.
- The district court allowed the plan to be used for the 1972 election except it enjoined use of the multimember districts in Dallas and Bexar Counties and required single-member districts there.
- State officials appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 to review the injunction and the associated declaratory judgment.
2. Whether the plan’s statewide population deviations (maximum 9.9%; average 1.82%) constituted invidious discrimination violating the Equal Protection Clause.
3. Whether the multimember districts in Dallas County and Bexar County unconstitutionally diluted minority voting strength in violation of equal protection.

## Decision

- The Court held it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 to review the injunction and, in connection with that appeal, the declaratory aspects of the judgment.
- The Court reversed the ruling that statewide population deviations alone rendered the state House plan unconstitutional, concluding the deviations were within permissible limits for state legislative apportionment absent proof of invidious discrimination.
- The Court affirmed the injunction dismantling the Dallas and Bexar multimember districts and requiring replacement with single-member districts.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with these holdings.

## Legal Principles

- Direct Supreme Court review lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 from an injunction issued by a properly convened three-judge district court; review may include the related declaratory judgment tied to the injunction.
- State legislative redistricting is not governed by the strict congressional “as nearly as practicable” population-equality standard; modest deviations do not violate equal protection without evidence of invidious discrimination.
- Multimember districts are not per se unconstitutional, but violate equal protection when, under the totality of local historical and political conditions, they operate to dilute the voting strength of a cognizable racial or ethnic minority.
- In assessing vote dilution, courts may consider past and present political exclusion, discriminatory social conditions with lingering effects, and political practices that minimize minority voters’ ability to elect representatives of their choice.
- A proper remedy for an unconstitutional multimember district may be replacement with single-member districts tailored to correct the dilution found.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained Texas’s overall state-house apportionment despite modest population deviations, but required Dallas and Bexar Counties to abandon multimember districts because those structures, in context, denied Black and Mexican-American voters an equal opportunity for effective political participation and representation.


White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973)