HARRISON ET AL.

v.

SCHAEFER ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• In re Apportionment LAW Appearing as Senate Joint Resolution No. 1305, 263 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1972)
  …(1965); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 86 S.Ct. 1286, 16 L.Ed.2d 376 (1966); Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U. S. 120, 87 S.Ct. 820, 17 L.Ed.2d 771 (1967). See also Burnette v. Davis, 382 U.S. 42, 86 S.Ct. 181, 15 L.Ed.2d 35 (1965); Harrison v. Schaefer, 383 U.S. 269, 86 S.Ct. 929, 15 L.Ed.2d 750 (1966). That voters in multi-member districts vote for and are represented by more legislators than voters in single-member districts has so far not demonstrated an invidious discrimination against the latter. But we ha…
• Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (U.S. 1971)
  …ot per se illegal under the Equal Protection Clause. Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U. S. 433 (1965); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73 (1966); Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U. S. 120 (1967). .See also Bur-nette v. Davis, 382 U. S. 42 (1965); Harrison v. Schaefer, 383 U. S. 269 (1966).22 That voters in multi-member [*143] districts vote for and are represented by more legislators than voters in single-member districts has so far not demonstrated an invidious discrimination against the latter. But w,e have deemed the validi…
• Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440 (U.S. 1967)
  …occur in recognizing certain factors that are free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination.” The State relies on Forty-fourth General Assembly of Colorado v. Lucas, 379 U. S. 693; Burnette v. Davis, 382 U. S. 42; and Harrison v. Schaefer, 383 U. S. 269, which were per curiam affirmances of lower court judgments in reapportionment cases. The State suggests that the plans approved in those cases involved variations in magnitude equal to or greater than those revealed by the Florida apportionment, an…