CompFox AI Summary
This class action, filed in 1978, challenged the constitutionality of Tennessee's senatorial district apportionment plan from 1973. The district court initially found the plan unconstitutional due to an 18.03% population deviation and enjoined future elections under it, retaining jurisdiction for a new plan if the General Assembly failed to act. After the legislature enacted a new plan with a 0.89% deviation, the Supreme Court initially deemed the state's appeal moot but later remanded the case for further proceedings. Plaintiffs then sought additional relief, arguing two districts lacked contiguity and that voter disenfranchisement resulted from shifting voters between odd and even-numbered districts due to staggered terms. The court denied further relief, finding no federal constitutional requirement for contiguity and deeming the temporary disenfranchisement a de minimis, unavoidable consequence of reapportionment, especially given the new plan's near-perfect mathematical equality.
Mader v. Crowell is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, M.D. Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, M.D. Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This class action, filed in 1978, challenged the constitutionality of Tennessee's senatorial district apportionment plan from 1973. The district court initially found the plan unconstitutional due to an 18.03% population deviation and enjoined future elections under it, retaining jurisdiction for a new plan if the General Assembly failed to act. After the legislature enacted a new plan with a 0.89% deviation, the Supreme Court initially deemed the state's appeal moot but later remanded the case for further proceedings. Plaintiffs then sought additional relief, arguing two districts lacked contiguity and that voter disenfranchisement resulted from shifting voters between odd and even-numbered districts due to staggered terms. The court denied further relief, finding no federal constitutional requirement for contiguity and deeming the temporary disenfranchisement a de minimis, unavoidable consequence of reapportionment, especially given the new plan's near-perfect mathematical equality.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.