In the case of Whitcomb v. Chavis (1970), a group of African-American residents from Marion County, Indiana challenged the state's multi-member districting scheme for electing representatives to its General Assembly. The plaintiffs argued that this system diluted their voting power and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that they failed to prove systematic discrimination or demonstrate that political processes were not equally open to participation by minority groups. The court held that while racial or political gerrymandering might be unconstitutional under certain circumstances, it was not inherently so and required clear evidence of discriminatory intent or effect.

In the dissenting opinion for Whitcomb v. Chavis, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately address racial discrimination in Indiana's legislative apportionment scheme. He contended that the multi-member district system used by Marion County diluted African American voting power and perpetuated a form of political apartheid. In his view, this was contrary to both equal protection principles and democratic ideals. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for requiring plaintiffs to prove intentional discrimination rather than focusing on its effects - an approach which he believed would make it nearly impossible for minority voters to challenge discriminatory electoral systems effectively.