Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 6 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
ported by the MSO Mason.
The majority plan would five the Tenth tOS^SK population. For the revised districts, the proposed and present population figures are: (First, $12,327 and 314,000; Second, 443,200 and 323,000; Third, 334,127 and 385,000; Fourth, 832,058 and 250,000; Eighth, 263,000 and 507,000.
Totals for unchanged districts are: Fifth, 316,784; Sixth, 337,947; Seventh, 281,325; Ninth, 390,380.
The majority—Chairman Rey B. Davis, of Halifax; Senator Andrew W. Clarke of Alexandria; Senator W. C. Caudill of Giles; Delegate John Warren Cooke of Mathews; and Senator A. S. Harrison, Jr., of Lawrenceville — agreed that the Constitution requires “a reasonable adherence to equality of representation." But they believed “unusual cimcumstances . . . may modify this provision." Population Factor Invalidate*
The minority—Delegates G. Edmond Massie of Richmond; George S. Aldhizer, II, of Harrisonburg; Harry B. Davis of Princess Anne, and duVal Ralford, of Bedford— thought the majority had modified the population factor to the point of invalidating the entire plan.
Both groups recalled that the Virginia Supreme Court in 1982 nullified a redistricting act on grounds that it violated the Constitution’s mandate for practical equality in population.
The minority added: “The lisparity in population in the majority report is greater than that” of the 1982 act junked by the Supreme Court.
For this “and for other minor reasons which it is not deemed necessary to set out in detail,” the minority said they cannot “conscientiously concur” in the majority report. Difference in Districts
The minority noted there is a difference between the smallest and largest district populations under the majority plan.
To the majority the Supreme Court’s “language in the case of Browe vs. Saunders (the 1932 case does not necessarily require blind adherence to an average' when other factors must apply.”
The other factors which impressed the majority were compactness and contiguity — including factors of distance, area, natural boundaries and communities of like interests.
62.0%