Bennett v. Elliott, 4697.
| Decision Date | 13 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 4697.,4697. |
| Citation | 294 F. Supp. 808 |
| Parties | R. W. BENNETT et al., v. James D. ELLIOTT et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
Frank Bryant, of Bryant, Price, Brandt & Torbett, Johnson City, Tenn., for plaintiffs.
Robert M. May, Jonesboro, Tenn., Edwin F. Hunt, of Boult, Hunt, Cummings & Conners, Nashville, Tenn., and Thomas E. Fox, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of Tennessee, Nashville, Tenn., for defendants.
Before PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, MILLER, Chief Judge, and GRAY, District Judge.
By order entered July 1, 1968, the Court directed the Quarterly County Court of Washington County, Tennessee, to file with the Court, on or before November 15, 1968, a proposed plan for reapportioning the membership of that body in compliance with the principles set forth in the opinion of the Court in this action rendered on February 13, 1968. Hyden, et al., v. Baker, et al., (Bennett, et al., v. Elliott, et al.), D.C., 286 F.Supp. 475 (1968). By the same order, it was directed that within ten days after the filing of such plan, any party would have the right to file objections thereto.
A proposed plan was filed by the Quarterly County Court of Washington County on November 14, 1968. On November 18, 1968, plaintiffs filed two exceptions or objections to the proposed plan: first, that the proposed plan in providing eight justices of the peace to be elected at large from Washington County as a whole violates Art. 6, § 15 of the Constitution of Tennessee which provides, inter alia, that there shall be two justices of the peace elected in each district into which the county shall be divided, with no provision being made for the election of justices of the peace from counties at large; and second, that the proposed plan is incomplete and insufficient in that it fixes no date for the election of the justices of the peace provided for in the plan.
No objection is made to the proposed plan on the ground that it fails to comply with the "one man, one vote" principle, or upon the ground that it does not properly reapportion the membership of the Quarterly County Court of Washington County insofar as federal constitutional principles are concerned.
An examination of the proposed plan discloses that it divides the county into 14 quarterly or county districts with two members of the County Court to be elected from each district. Eight additional members of the County Court are provided to be elected at large from the entire county, making a total county court membership of 36. In creating quarterly or county districts, the existing civil districts and voting precincts are arranged or combined in such way that no change is made in existing civil district and voting precinct lines. The registered voters for each of the 14 quarterly or county districts varies from a high of 2,481, to a low of 1,676.
The total number of registered voters for the county, as set forth in the plan, is 29,015. The mean or average number of registered voters for each of the 14 quarterly or county districts is 2,072.5. Thus, the percentage variation of the district having the lowest number of registered voters (the 13th) is 19.131, while the district having the highest number of registered voters (the 9th) varies from the average by a percentage of 19.710.
Under the proposed plan the quarterly or county districts are equally divided between the existing 9th Civil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flateau v. Anderson
...supra, 377 U.S. at 583-584, 84 S.Ct. at 1392-1393; Goines v. Rockefeller, 338 F.Supp. 1189, 1195 (S.D.W.Va.1972); Bennett v. Elliott, 294 F.Supp. 808, 810 (M.D. Tenn.1968).19 The United States Supreme Court has enunciated on numerous occasions that "legislative reapportionment is primarily ......
-
State ex rel. Jones v. Washington County
...474, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45. In the case of Hyden v. Baker (D.C. Cir.), 286 F.Supp. 475, and companion case of Bennett v. Elliott (D.C. Cir.), 294 F.Supp. 808, the Federal Court held that Article 6, Section 15, of the Constitution of Tennessee and T.C.A. Sections 19--101, 19--102, and......
-
Sudekum v. Hayes, 19632.
...and is subject to the one-man, one-vote rule. Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45; Bennett v. Elliott, 294 F.Supp. 808 (M.D.Tenn.); Otis v. Boyd, 294 F.Supp. 813 (E.D. Tenn.); Hyden v. Baker, 286 F.Supp. 475 In the present case District Judge William E. Mille......
- United States v. Schneider, 3-68 CR. 59.