District | General population | Voting age population | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
White | Black | White | Black | |
----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | |
1 | 70.5% | 29.5% | 74.7% | 25.3% |
2 | 46.6% | 53.4% | 52% | 48% |
3 | 72.3% | 27.7% | 76.5% | 23.5% |
4 | 68% | 32% | 72.5% | 27.5% |
5 | 46% | 54% | 51.4% | 48.6% |
(R)epresentative government is in essence self-government through the medium of elected representatives of the people, and each and every citizen has an inalienable right to full and effective participation in the political processes of his State's legislative bodies. Most citizens can achieve this participation only as qualified voters through the election of legislators to represent them. Full and effective participation by all citizens in state government requires, therefore, that each citizen have an equally effective voice in the election of members of his state legislature. Modern and viable state government needs, and the Constitution demands, no less.
When the State apportions its legislature, it must have due regard for the Equal Protection Clause. Similarly, when the State delegates lawmaking power to local government and provides for the election of local officials from districts specified by statute, ordinance, or local charter, it must insure that those qualified to vote have the right to an equally effective voice in the election process. If voters residing in oversize districts are denied their constitutional right to participate in the election of state legislators, precisely the same kind of deprivation occurs when the members of a city council, school board, or county governing board are elected from districts of substantially unequal population.
But our cases have not embraced the proposition that a law or other official act, without regard to whether it reflects a racially discriminatory purpose, is unconstitutional solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact.
The plaintiffs have failed to prove by the convincing evidence that their voting strength will be minimized or canceled out in any way by the Board plan, in which blacks constitute a majority of the population in two districts. In view of the possible variances in the computations of the voting age population in District Two and District Five, coupled with *149 the heretofore noted inconsistencies in predicting block voting patterns in Hinds County, the Board plan offers black residents of this county, who constitute less than 40% of the total population, a realistic opportunity to elect officials of their choice, whether white or black, in two supervisors' districts and to significantly affect the election of county officials in the three remaining districts.
Children aged 15 - 24 in 1970: | ||
Total: | 41,019 | |
White: | 23,542 | 57.4% |
Black: | 17,477 | 42.6% |
Children aged 5 - 14 in 1970: | ||
Total: | 46,980 | |
White: | 24,661 | 52.5% |
Black: | 22,319 | 47.5% |
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |