Reynolds v. Sims Article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Reynolds v. Sims
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November, 1963
Decided June 15, 1964
Full case nameReynolds, Judge, et al. v. Sims, et al.
Citations377 U.S. 533 ( more)
84 S. Ct. 1362; 12 L. Ed. 2d 506; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 1002
Prior historyAppeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Holding
State senate districts must have roughly equal populations based on the principle of
one person-one vote.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinions
MajorityWarren, joined by Black, Douglas, Brennan, White, Goldberg
ConcurrenceClark
ConcurrenceStewart
DissentHarlan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV ( Equal Protection Clause)
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946)

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that unlike in the election of the United States Senate, in the election of any chamber of a state legislature the electoral districts must be roughly equal in population. The case was brought on behalf of voters in Alabama by M.O. Sims, a taxpayer in Birmingham, Alabama, but affected both northern and southern states that had similarly failed to reapportion their legislatures in keeping with changes in state population after its application in five companion cases in Colorado, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware. [1]

Historical background

That a State Senate was to represent rural counties, as a counterbalance to towns and cities, was understood before the industrialization and urbanization of the United States. State and national legislatures had been reluctant to redistrict. [2] This reluctance developed because there existed general upper-class fear that if redistricting to meet population changes were carried out, voters in large, expanding or expanded urban areas would vote for confiscatory wealth redistribution [3] that would severely inhibit the power of business interests who controlled state and city [4] governments early in the century. [2] Of the forty-eight states then in the Union, only seven [a] twice redistricted even one chamber of their legislature following both the 1930 and the 1940 Censuses. [5] [6] Oregon did not redistrict between 1907 and 1960, Illinois not between 1910 and 1955, [7] while Alabama and Tennessee had at the time of Reynolds not redistricted since 1901. In Connecticut, Vermont, Mississippi, and Delaware, apportionment was fixed by the states’ constitutions, which, when written in the late eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, could not have imagined the possibility of rural depopulation as was to occur during the first half of the century. [5]

Having already overturned its ruling that redistricting was a purely political question in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Court ruled to correct what it considered egregious examples of malapportionment; these were serious enough to undermine the premises underlying republican government. Before Reynolds, urban counties nationwide often had total representations similar to rural counties, and in Florida, there was a limit to three representatives even for the most populous counties. [6]

The case

Voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, home to the state’s largest city of Birmingham, had challenged the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature. The Alabama Constitution provided that there be only one state senator per county. Ratio variances as great as 41 to 1 from one senatorial district to another existed in the Alabama Senate (i.e., the number of eligible voters voting for one senator was in one case 41 times the number of voters in another).

Among the more extreme pre-Reynolds disparities [8] claimed by Morris K. Udall:

Decision

The eight justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of “ one person, one vote.” In his majority decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.” In addition, the majority simply denied the argument that states were permitted to base their apportionment structures upon the Constitution itself, which requires two senators from each state despite substantially un-equal populations among the states.

Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a concurring opinion.

Justice Potter Stewart also issued a concurring opinion, in which he argued that while many of the schemes of representation before the court in the case were egregiously undemocratic and clearly violative of equal protection, it was not for the Court to provide any guideline beyond general reasonableness for apportionment of districts.

In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote that the majority had chosen to ignore the language, history, and original intent of the Equal Protection Clause, which did not extend to voting rights. The dissent strongly accused the Court of repeatedly amending the Constitution through its opinions, rather than waiting for the lawful amendment process: "the Court's action now bringing them (state legislative apportionments) within the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment amounts to nothing less than an exercise of the amending power by this Court." The Court soon extended “one person, one vote” to all U.S. congressional districts in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), but not to the Senate.

Aftermath

Since the ruling applied different representation rules to the states than was applicable to the federal government, Reynolds v. Sims set off a legislative firestorm across the country. Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois led a fight to pass a constitutional amendment allowing legislative districts based on land area, similar to the United States Senate. [9] He warned that:

[T]he forces of our national life are not brought to bear on public questions solely in proportion to the weight of numbers. If they were, the 6 million citizens of the Chicago area would hold sway in the Illinois Legislature without consideration of the problems of their 4 million fellows who are scattered in 100 other counties. Under the Court's new decree, California could be dominated by Los Angeles and San Francisco; Michigan by Detroit.

Numerous states had to change their system of representation in the state legislature. For instance, South Carolina had elected one state senator from each county. It devised a reapportionment plan and passed an amendment providing for home rule to counties. However, as all states affected retained their state senates and state senators being elected from Single-member districts, rather than abolishing the upper houses, as had been done in 1936 in Nebraska [b] and in Canada, or switched to electing state senators by proportional representation from several large multi-member districts or from one statewide at-large district, as was done in Australia, allegations of State Senates being redundant bodies arose post Reynolds v. Sims. [10]

Praise

In a 2015 Time Magazine survey of over 50 law professors, both Erwin Chemerinsky (Dean, UC Berkeley School of Law) and Richard Pildes ( NYU School of Law) named Reynolds v. Sims the "best Supreme Court decision since 1960," with Chemerinsky noting that in his opinion, the decision made American government "far more democratic and representative." [11]

See also

References

  1. ^ Sullivan, Kathleen M.; Feldman, Noah (2013). Constitutional Law (18th ed.). St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters/Foundation Press. p. 779. ISBN  978-1-60930-251-1.
  2. ^ a b Smith, J. Douglas (2015). On Democracy’s Doorstep: The Inside Story of How the Supreme Court Brought “One Person, One Vote” to the United States. Hill & Wang. pp. 4–18. ISBN  978-0-8090-7424-2.
  3. ^ Rodden, Jonathan A. (March 25, 2011). The Long Shadow of the Industrial Revolution: Political Geography and the Representation of the Left (PDF). Stanford University. Retrieved January 3, 2018.
  4. ^ Baker, Gordon E. (1979). Rural Versus Urban Political Power: The Nature and Consequences of Unbalanced Representation. Praeger. p. 4. ISBN  978-0-313-21223-9.
  5. ^ a b Shull, Charles W. (1941). "Reapportionment: A Chronic Problem". National Municipal Review. 30: 73–79.
  6. ^ a b Harvey, Lashey G. (1952). "Reapportionments of State Legislatures: Legal Requirement". Law and Contemporary Problems. 17 (2): 364–376.
  7. ^ Baker; Rural Versus Urban Political Power; p. 14
  8. ^ Udall, Morris K. (October 14, 1964). "Reapportionment--I "One Man, One Vote" . . . That's All She Wrote!". Congressman's Report. University of Arizona. Retrieved January 3, 2018.
  9. ^ McBride, Alex (December 2006). "Landmark Cases: Reynolds v. Sims (1964)". The Supreme Court. WNET. Retrieved January 3, 2018.
  10. ^ "CALIFORNIA: Do we need state senators?". The Press-Enterprise. December 17, 2011. Retrieved January 3, 2018.
  11. ^ Sachs, Andrea (October 6, 2015). "The Best Supreme Court Decisions Since 1960". Time. Retrieved October 1, 2018.

Notes

  1. ^ These being New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire ( lower house only), Maine, South Dakota, Montana and Nevada ( lower house only)
  2. ^ Technically, Nebraska abolished the lower house of its legislature, granting its powers to the Nebraska Senate (which was renamed simply the "Nebraska Legislature"), but the end result was effectively the same.

External links