Smith v. Craddick, No. B--2932

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtREAVLEY; DANIEL
Citation471 S.W.2d 375
PartiesPreston SMITH, Governor of the State of Texas, et al., Appellants, v. Tom CRADDICK et al., Appellees.
Decision Date16 September 1971
Docket NumberNo. B--2932

Page 375

471 S.W.2d 375
Preston SMITH, Governor of the State of Texas, et al.,
Appellants,
v.
Tom CRADDICK et al., Appellees.
No. B--2932.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Sept. 16, 1971.

Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., Pat Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for relators.

Golden, Burrow, Potts & Boeckman, Duncan Boeckman, Dallas, for respondents.

REAVLEY, Justice.

The appellees (Tom Craddick, Robert L. Monaghan, George Willeford, and James L. Kent) as a member of the Texas Legislature, the Republican County Chairman of Midland County, the Republican State Chairman, and as qualified voters, brought this suit as a class action on behalf of all voters of Texas to obtain declaration of the unconstitutionality of House Bill No. 783, 62nd Legislature, Regular Session, 1971, 1 and to enjoin the appellants (Preston Smith, Crawford Martin, Martin Dies, Jr.,

Page 376

Elmer Baum, Rosenelle Cherry and Barbara Culver) who hold the offices of Governor and Secretary of State of Texas, Chairman of the State Democratic Executive Committee, County Clerk and County Judge of Midland County, from acting to conduct any election procedure pursuant to that House Bill No. 783. The district court entered its final judgment on August 10, 1971, declaring the statute unconstitutional and permanently enjoining the Secretary of State from conducting elections thereunder. The appellants filed their appeal directly to this court pursuant to Art. 1738a, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. and Rule 499a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and their motion to advance the cause filed on September 3 was granted and the cause was submitted on September 9.

By the statute in question the Legislature has redrawn the representative districts of the state from which members of the House of Representatives of the Texas Legislature are elected. The statute is attacked as violating Section 26, Article III of the Texas Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St. The constitutionality of this redistricting statute is the only question presented to us by the briefs and record. Furthermore, it is the only question over which we have jurisdiction in the direct appeal. State v. Spartan's Industries, inc., 447 S.W.2d 407 (Tex.1969).

Article III, Section 26 of the Texas Constitution has provided since 1876 as follows:

'The members of the House of Representatives shall be apportioned among the several counties, according to the number of population in each, as nearly as may be, on a ratio obtained by dividing the population of the State, as ascertained by the most recent United States census, by the number of members of which the House is composed; provided, that whenever a single county has sufficient population to be entitled to a Representative, such county shall be formed into a separate Representative District, and when two or more counties are required to make up the ratio of representation, such counties shall be contiguous to each other; and when any one county has more than sufficient population to be entitled to one or more Representatives, such Representative or Representatives shall be apportioned to such county, and for any surplus of population it may be joined in a Representative District with any other contiguous county or counties.'

Representation in the House of Representatives is thereby apportioned among the counties of the state according to population. If the population of a county is so small as not to entitle that county to one representative, two or more contiguous Counties may be joined in a separate district. When one county has a population which exceeds that which entitles it to one or more representatives, that County is to be apportioned to what it is entitled, and the County may be joined with contiguous counties for the district representative to which the surplus population entitles it. No restriction is seen in this language to prevent drawing district lines within a single county.

The Legislature met the constitutional requirements from 1875 until 1966 in that no county was divided to form a representative district across the county line. Then came the Kilgarlin case in which the three judge federal court struck the flotorial representative districts of the Texas statute then in effect (Kilgarlin v. Martin, 252 F.Supp. 404, S.D.Tex.1966) and the Supreme Court held that the population variation between the districts required further justification (Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U.S. 120, 87 S.Ct. 820, 17 L.Ed.2d 771, 1967). These decisions followed the decisions of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens of a state. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). Cf. Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50, 90 S.Ct. 791, 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970); Kirkpatrick v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • McCulloch v. Fox & Jacobs, Inc., No. 05-83-01329-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • July 15, 1985
    ...of demonstrating invalidity rests on the party assailing the statute. Robinson v. Hill, 507 S.W.2d 521, 524 (1974); Smith v. Craddick, 471 S.W.2d 375, 378 The open courts provision is a facet of due process and ensures that Texas citizens bringing a common law cause of action will not unrea......
  • Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth v. Episcopal Church, No. 11–0265.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • March 21, 2014
    ...Tex. Antiquities Comm. v. Dallas Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 554 S.W.2d 924, 925–27 (Tex.1977) (plurality opinion); Smith v. Craddick, 471 S.W.2d 375, 375–76 (Tex.1971); State v. Scott, 460 S.W.2d 103, 105 (Tex.1970); State v. Spartan's Indus., Inc., 447 S.W.2d 407, 409 (Tex.1969); Jordan v. S......
  • Terrazas v. Clements, Civ. A. No. 3-81-1946-R.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • March 24, 1982
    ...plan was invalid under the Texas Constitution because it violated the requirement for preserving counties intact. Smith v. Craddick, 471 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.1971).343 F.Supp. 704 (W.D.Tex. 1972), aff'd sub nom, Archer v. Smith, 409 U.S. 808, 93 S.Ct. 62, 34 L.Ed.2d 68 (1972). In 1972, the House......
  • Fonfara v. Reapportionment Com'n, No. 14421
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 26, 1992
    ...evidence that the cutting of county lines was necessary to satisfy the requirements of equal representation"); Smith v. Craddick, 471 S.W.2d 375, 378 (Tex.1971) (state's 1971 redistricting plan invalid; "[commission] offered no evidence to establish that the wholesale cutting of county line......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • McCulloch v. Fox & Jacobs, Inc., No. 05-83-01329-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • July 15, 1985
    ...of demonstrating invalidity rests on the party assailing the statute. Robinson v. Hill, 507 S.W.2d 521, 524 (1974); Smith v. Craddick, 471 S.W.2d 375, 378 The open courts provision is a facet of due process and ensures that Texas citizens bringing a common law cause of action will not unrea......
  • Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth v. Episcopal Church, No. 11–0265.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • March 21, 2014
    ...Tex. Antiquities Comm. v. Dallas Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 554 S.W.2d 924, 925–27 (Tex.1977) (plurality opinion); Smith v. Craddick, 471 S.W.2d 375, 375–76 (Tex.1971); State v. Scott, 460 S.W.2d 103, 105 (Tex.1970); State v. Spartan's Indus., Inc., 447 S.W.2d 407, 409 (Tex.1969); Jordan v. S......
  • Terrazas v. Clements, Civ. A. No. 3-81-1946-R.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • March 24, 1982
    ...plan was invalid under the Texas Constitution because it violated the requirement for preserving counties intact. Smith v. Craddick, 471 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.1971).343 F.Supp. 704 (W.D.Tex. 1972), aff'd sub nom, Archer v. Smith, 409 U.S. 808, 93 S.Ct. 62, 34 L.Ed.2d 68 (1972). In 1972, the House......
  • Fonfara v. Reapportionment Com'n, No. 14421
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 26, 1992
    ...evidence that the cutting of county lines was necessary to satisfy the requirements of equal representation"); Smith v. Craddick, 471 S.W.2d 375, 378 (Tex.1971) (state's 1971 redistricting plan invalid; "[commission] offered no evidence to establish that the wholesale cutting of county line......
  • 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