Tom C. Clark

“ It is true that the apportionment policy incorporated in Tennessee's Constitution, i.e., statewide numerical equality of representation with certain minor qualifications, [5] is a rational one. On a county-by-county comparison [p254] a districting plan based thereon naturally will have disparities in representation due to the qualifications. But this, to my mind, does not raise constitutional problems, for the overall policy is reasonable. However, the root of the trouble is not in Tennessee's Constitution, for admittedly its policy has not been followed. ”

“ But the majority of the people of Tennessee have no [p259] "practical opportunities for exerting their political weight at the polls" to correct the existing "invidious discrimination." Tennessee has no initiative and referendum. ”

“ Since discrimination is present among counties of like population, the plan is neither consistent nor rational. It discriminates horizontally creating gross disparities between rural areas themselves as well as between urban areas themselves, [8] still maintaining the wide vertical disparity already pointed out between rural and urban.
It is also insisted that the representation formula used above (see [7] ) is "patently deficient" because "it eliminates from consideration the relative voting power of the counties that are joined together in a single election district." ”

“ Georgia based its election system on a consistent combination of political units and population, giving six unit votes to the eight most populous counties, four unit votes to the 30 counties next in population, and two unit votes to each of the remaining counties. ”

“ The majority of the voters have been caught up in a legislative strait jacket. Tennessee has an "informed, civically militant electorate" and "an aroused popular conscience," but it does not sear "the conscience of the people's representatives." This is because the legislative policy has riveted the present seats in the Assembly to their respective constituencies, and by the votes of their incumbents a reapportionment of any kind is prevented. The people have been rebuffed at the hands of the Assembly ”

“ The majority appears to hold, at least sub silentio, that an invidious discrimination is present, but it remands to the three-judge court for it to make what is certain to be that formal determination. It is true that Tennessee has not filed a formal answer. However, it has filed voluminous papers and made extended arguments supporting its position. At no time has it been able to contradict the appellants' factual claims; it has offered no rational explanation for the present apportionment ”

“ This is a strange claim coming from those who rely on the proposition that "the voice of every voter" need not have "approximate equality." Indeed, representative government, as they say, is not necessarily one of "bare numbers." ”

“ Finally, the Georgia county unit system cases, such as South v. Peters, 339 U.S. 276 (1950) , reflect the viewpoint of MacDougall, i.e., to refrain from intervening where there is some rational policy behind the State's system. [4]
II The controlling facts cannot be disputed. It appears from the record that 37% of the voters of Tennessee elect 20 of the 33 Senators, while 40% of the voters elect 63 of the 99 members of the House. But this might not, on its face, be an "invidious discrimination," Williamson v. ”