Davis v. Mann

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Edmund D. Campbell (Argued the cause for the appellees)
Archibald Cox (By special leave of Court, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance)
R. D. McIlwaine, III (Argued the cause for the appellants)
David J. Mays (Argued the cause for the appellants)
Henry E. Howell, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellees)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
69
Appellee: 
Mann
Appellant: 
Davis
Decided By: 
Warren Court (1962-1965)
Opinion: 
377 U.S. 678 (1964)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Davis v. Mann , 377 U.S. 678 (1964)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_69)
Facts of the Case: 

Acting on behalf of residents, taxpayers, and qualified voters in Arlington and Fairfax County, Virginia, Harrison Mann challenged Virginia's 1962 amended statutory apportionment scheme as unrepresentative. Harrison called for a redistribution of legislative representation among the counties and independent cities of the state "substantially in proportion to their respective populations." When Levin Davis appealed an adverse three-judge district court ruling on behalf of Virginia's Secretary and State Board of Elections, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question: 

Did Virginia's apportionment scheme violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Conclusion: 

Yes. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court noted that under the Fourteenth Amendment all bicameral state legislatures must substantially apportion both seats of their houses on a population basis. In Virginia's case, neither of its legislative houses was apportioned on a population basis. Virginia's claim that the underrepresented counties were composed primarily of military personnel and their families, who often only resided in the state for relatively short periods of time, did not constitute a defense to its actions. Instead, this amounted to discrimination against a class of individuals merely because of the nature of their employment.

Decisions

Decision: 8 votes for Mann, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Sort by Ideology

Wrote the majority opinion
Warren
Voted with the majority
Black
Voted with the majority
Douglas
Wrote a special concurrence
Clark
Wrote a dissent
Harlan
Voted with the majority
Brennan
Wrote a special concurrence
Stewart
Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the majority
Goldberg

Full Opinion by Justice Earl Warren