JASPER C. DAVIS ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS COUNTY, GEORGIA ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the election method for county commissioners, despite population disparities in representation, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Appellants challenged a Georgia statute providing for the election of county commissioners, alleging it resulted in unequal representation based on po…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Contending that the method of election of the eight members of the Board of Commissioners of Roads and Revenues of Thomas County provided by an act of the Georgia Legislature in 1911 (1911 Ga.Laws, p. 501), as amended in 1917 (1917 Ga.Laws, p. 394), constituted a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment within the principles articulated in Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963) and nurtured in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964), appellants, resident citizens of District No. 1 (Thomasville), filed their complaint for a declaratory judgment that such enactments are unconstitutional.
The thrust of their complaint is that although the present statute requires the election of all eight commissioners, with staggered terms, by the electorate of the county at large, the residence requirements set forth therein result in the representation of District No. 1, with a population of 20,492, by two commissioners, while the remaining four districts with a population of 13,827, are represented by six. This, they insist, amounts to invidious discrimination as a matter of law.
Being of the opinion that the complaint did not meet the test of Reed v. Mann, 237 F.Supp. 22 (N.D.Ga.1964), the district court sustained the motion to dismiss filed in behalf of defendants. This result is clearly vindicated by the opinion of the Supreme Court in Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112, 87 S.Ct. 1554, 18 L.Ed.2d 656 (May 22, 1967), which is dis-positive of this appeal. The judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reese v. Dallas Cnty., 505 F.2d 879 (5th Cir. 1974)
-
Thomasville Branch OF the Nat'l Ass'n FOR the Advancement OF Colored People v. Thomas Cnty., 571 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
Goldblatt v. The City OF Dallas, 414 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1969)
Authorities Cited
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1964)
- Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1963)
- Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1967)