Excellent comments. This happened before I was born and I’m not very aware of it, but can see the problem. Can you point out the specific SCOTUS ruling?
This happened before I was born and I’m not very aware of it, but can see the problem. Can you point out the specific SCOTUS ruling?
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) [8-1] Harlan (R) dissenting.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/23
Facts of the case
In 1961, M.O. Sims, David J. Vann (of Vann v. Baggett), John McConnell (McConnell v. Baggett), and other voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, challenged the apportionment of the state legislature. Lines dividing electoral districts had resulted in dramatic population discrepancies among the districts. The state constitution required at least one representative per county and senatorial district. However, the district in Jefferson County, which is near Birmingham, contained 41 times as many eligible voters as those in another district of the state. Sims and the other voters argued that this lack of proportionality prevented them from effectively participating in a republican form of government.
Question
Did Alabama's apportionment scheme violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by mandating at least one representative per county and creating as many senatorial districts as there were senators, regardless of population variances?
Conclusion
8–1 decision
majority opinion by Earl Warren
Equal protection requires that state legislative districts should be comprised of roughly equal populations if possible.
In an 8-to-1 decision authored by Justice Earl Warren, the Court upheld the challenge to the Alabama system, holding that Equal Protection Clause demanded "no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens...." Noting that the right to direct representation was "a bedrock of our political system," the Court held that both houses of bicameral state legislatures had to be apportioned on a population basis. States were required to "honest and good faith" efforts to construct districts as nearly of equal population as practicable.
Justice Stewart concurred, agreeing with Warren that the Court could intervene to address egregious situations of misapportionment, Stewart sought to limit the application of this decision to clear violations of equal protection. He felt wary of imposing specific guidelines on states for how to redraw the district lines or setting a certain range of ratios that would be acceptable.
Justice Harlan dissented, applying an originalist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which in his opinion had not been meant by the drafters to protect voting rights. He suggested that the Court was intruding on federalism principles protecting the states in their control of local matters.
Justice Clark concurred in a separate opinion.
- - - - -
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) [6-3] Clark (D), Harlan (R) and Stewart (R) dissenting.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/22
Facts of the case
James P. Wesberry resided in a Georgia congressional district with a population two to three times greater than that of other congressional districts in the state. He asserted that because there was only one congressman for each district, his vote was debased as a result of the state apportionment statute and the state's failure to realign the congressional districts. Wesberry sought to invalidate the apportionment statute and enjoin defendants, the Governor and Secretary of State, from conducting elections under it. The district court dismissed the complaint for non-justiciability and want of equity. Wesberry appealed.
Question
Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote?
Conclusion
6–3 decision for Wesberry
majority opinion by Hugo L. Black
Congressional districts must have roughly equal populations if this is feasible.
In an opinion authored by Hugo L. Black, the 6-3 majority held that the district court had jurisdiction because debasement of the right to vote as a result of a state congressional apportionment law was justiciable and not subject to dismissal for "want of equity." The Court further held that the apportionment statute was invalid because it abridged the requirement of Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution that The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
Justice Clark concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed with the majority that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for nonjusticiability and want of equity, but stated further that Article 1, section 2, does not forbid disproportionate congressional districts and that the case should be remanded for a hearing to determine whether the apportionment statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Harlan dissented on the ground that the Constitution expressly provides that state legislatures and Congress have exclusive jurisdiction over problems of congressional apportionment of the type involved in the case.
Justice Stewart stated that he joined with Mr. Justice Harlan's dissent except insofar as there might be implied in that dissent the view that the issues were not justiciable.
- - - - -
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/6
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) [6-2] Frankfurter (I) and Harlan (R) dissenting. Whittaker (R) did not take part.
6–2 decision for Baker
majority opinion by William J. Brennan, Jr.
State reapportionment claims are justiciable in federal court
In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. In his majority opinion, Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted. Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation.
Justices Douglas, Clark, and Stewart filed separate concurring opinions.
Justice Frankfurter, joined by Justice Harlan, dissented.
- - - - -