Graves v. Barnes Regester v. Bullock Mariott v. Smith Archer v. Smith 8212 795, No. A

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMr. Justice POWELL
Citation30 L.Ed.2d 769,92 S.Ct. 752,405 U.S. 1201
Docket NumberNo. A
Decision Date07 February 1972
PartiesCurtis GRAVES et al. v. Ben BARNES et al. Diana REGESTER et al. v. Bob BULLOCK et al. Johnny MARIOTT et al. v. Preston SMITH et al. Van Henry ARCHER, Jr. v. Preston SMITH et al. —795

405 U.S. 1201
92 S.Ct. 752
30 L.Ed.2d 769
Curtis GRAVES et al.

v.

Ben BARNES et al. Diana REGESTER et al. v. Bob BULLOCK et al. Johnny MARIOTT et al. v. Preston SMITH et al. Van Henry ARCHER, Jr. v. Preston SMITH et al.

No. A—795.
Feb. 7, 1972.

Mr. Justice POWELL, Circuit Justice.

This is an application for a stay of the judgment of a three-judge court sitting in the Western District of Texas. The court's decision covers issues raised in four consolidated actions. The principal issues were as follows:

1. In Graves v. Barnes, plaintiffs challenged the State's reapportionment plan for the senatorial districts in Harris County (Houston) on the ground that they were racially gerrymandered.

2. In Regester v. Bullock, the State's reapportionment plan for the Texas House of Representatives was challenged on the grounds of population deviations from the one-man, one-vote requirement, and on the impermissibility of use of multi-member districts in the metropolitan communities.

3. In Mariott v. Smith, the House plan provision calling for a multi-member district for Dallas County was challenged.

4. In Archer v. Smith, a generally similar attack was levelled against the use of multi-member districting in Bexar County (San Antonio).

The four cases were consolidated and tried by a single three-judge panel. After full pretrial discovery, during

Page 1202

which over 2,000 pages of depositions were taken, the District Court heard testimony at a three-and-one-half day hearing. The extensive per curiam opinion, 343 F.Supp. 704, and the concurring and dissenting opinions, which were handed down after some three weeks of deliberation, reflect a careful and exhaustive consideration of the issues in light of the facts as developed. The court's conclusions, in substance, were as follows:

(a) The Senate redistricting plan, as promulgated by the Texas Legislative Redistricting Board, was approved.

(b) The House redistricting plan was held violative of the Equal Protection Clause because of population deviations from equality of representation. But, in an exercise of judicial restraint, the court suspended its decision in this respect for the purpose of affording the Legislature of Texas an opportunity to adopt a new and constitutional plan. Meanwhile, the forthcoming election may be held under the plan found to be deficient.

(c) The multi-member district plans for Dallas and Bexar Counties were found to be unconstitutional under the standard prescribed by this Court in Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433, 438 439, 86 S.Ct. 498, 501, 13 L.Ed.2d 401 (1965); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 88, 86 S.Ct. 1286, 1294, 16 L.Ed.2d 376 (1966); and Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 143, 91 S.Ct. 1858, 1869, 29 L.Ed.2d 363...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., Nos. 883
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • February 20, 1986
    ...Pub. Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 419 U.S. 1301, 1305, 95 S.Ct. 1, 3, 42 L.Ed.2d 17 (1974) (Powell, J., in chambers); Graves v. Barnes, 405 U.S. 1201, 1203, 92 S.Ct. 752, 753, 30 L.Ed.2d 769 (1972) (Powell, J., in Thus an inflexible requirement for impressment of a lien and denial of a stay of ex......
  • Ritter v. Smith, No. 83-7486
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • February 27, 1984
    ...Alabama v. Evans, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 1740, 75 L.Ed.2d at 811 n. * (Marshall, J. dissenting); see also Graves v. Barnes, 405 U.S. 1201, 1204, 92 S.Ct. 752, 754, 30 L.Ed.2d 769 (1972) (Powell, J. in 17 "[T]he well established principles that guide a Circuit Justice in considering ......
  • Evancho v. Pine-Richland Sch. Dist., Civil No. 2:16–01537
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • February 27, 2017
    ...was erroneous—had demonstrated the existence of such "extraordinary circumstances" as are necessary to warrant a stay. Graves v. Barnes , 405 U.S. 1201, 1203, 92 S.Ct. 752, 30 L.Ed.2d 769 (1972) (Powell, J., in chambers). Although the Supreme Court granted its stay before the 2017 Guidance ......
  • Roe v. Shanahan, 1:18-cv-1565 (LMB/IDD)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • February 15, 2019
    ...probability that four Members of the Court will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari." Graves v. Barnes, 405 U.S. 1201, 1203, 92 S.Ct. 752, 30 L.Ed.2d 769 (Powell, Circuit Justice 1972) : cf. Dunn v. Ray, No. 18A815, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 661, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., Nos. 883
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • February 20, 1986
    ...Pub. Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 419 U.S. 1301, 1305, 95 S.Ct. 1, 3, 42 L.Ed.2d 17 (1974) (Powell, J., in chambers); Graves v. Barnes, 405 U.S. 1201, 1203, 92 S.Ct. 752, 753, 30 L.Ed.2d 769 (1972) (Powell, J., in Thus an inflexible requirement for impressment of a lien and denial of a stay of ex......
  • Ritter v. Smith, No. 83-7486
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • February 27, 1984
    ...Alabama v. Evans, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 1740, 75 L.Ed.2d at 811 n. * (Marshall, J. dissenting); see also Graves v. Barnes, 405 U.S. 1201, 1204, 92 S.Ct. 752, 754, 30 L.Ed.2d 769 (1972) (Powell, J. in 17 "[T]he well established principles that guide a Circuit Justice in considering ......
  • Evancho v. Pine-Richland Sch. Dist., Civil No. 2:16–01537
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • February 27, 2017
    ...was erroneous—had demonstrated the existence of such "extraordinary circumstances" as are necessary to warrant a stay. Graves v. Barnes , 405 U.S. 1201, 1203, 92 S.Ct. 752, 30 L.Ed.2d 769 (1972) (Powell, J., in chambers). Although the Supreme Court granted its stay before the 2017 Guidance ......
  • Roe v. Shanahan, 1:18-cv-1565 (LMB/IDD)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • February 15, 2019
    ...probability that four Members of the Court will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari." Graves v. Barnes, 405 U.S. 1201, 1203, 92 S.Ct. 752, 30 L.Ed.2d 769 (Powell, Circuit Justice 1972) : cf. Dunn v. Ray, No. 18A815, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 661, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT