In the case of Morales et al. v. City of Galveston et al., 1961, a group of Mexican-American citizens challenged the at-large system used to elect city commissioners in Galveston, Texas. They argued that this method diluted their voting power and violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection under law. The Supreme Court ruled against them, stating that there was no evidence showing intentional discrimination by the city or state officials in implementing this electoral system. Furthermore, it found no constitutional requirement for proportional representation based on race or ethnicity within an electorate body; thus concluding that while minority groups may find it more difficult to secure representation through such systems, they do not inherently violate equal protection principles unless proven discriminatory intent is present.

In the dissenting opinion for Morales et al. v. City of Galveston et al., Justice Douglas argued that the city's urban renewal plan was unconstitutional because it violated due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He believed that this case represented a misuse of eminent domain, as private property was being taken from one group to be given to another, rather than being used for public benefit or purpose. Furthermore, he contended that there were racial implications in this case since most properties targeted by the urban renewal project belonged to Mexican-Americans who would likely not be able to afford housing in new developments created by such projects. Therefore, he saw this as an act of discrimination against minority groups which is contrary to principles enshrined in Constitution.