- Reynolds v. Sims
SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Reynolds v. Sims
ArgueDate=November 13
ArgueYear=1963
DecideDate=June 15
DecideYear=1964
FullName=Reynolds, Judge, et al. v. Sims, et al.
USVol=377
USPage=533
Citation=84 S. Ct. 1362; 12 L. Ed. 2d 506; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 1002
Prior=Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Subsequent=
Holding=The Court struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote."
SCOTUS=1962-1965
Majority=Warren
JoinMajority=Black, Douglas, Brennan, White, Goldberg
Concurrence=Clark
Concurrence2=Stewart
Dissent=Harlan
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. XIV,Equal Protection Clause "Reynolds v. Sims", 377 U.S. 533 (
1964 ) was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.Voters from Jefferson County,
Alabama , had challenged the apportionment of theAlabama Legislature . TheAlabama Constitution provided that there be at least one representative per county and as many senatorial districts as there were senators. Ratio variances as great as 41 to 1 from one senatorial district to another existed in theAlabama Senate (i.e., the number of eligible voters voting for one senator was in one case 41 times the number of voters in another).Having already overturned its ruling that redistricting was a purely political question in "
Baker v. Carr ", 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Court went further in order to correct what seemed to it to be egregious examples of malapportionment which were serious enough to undermine the premises underlying republican government. Before "Reynolds", urban counties were often drastically underrepresented.Among the more egregious pre-"Reynolds" disparities (compiled by Congressman
Morris K. Udall ):* In the
Connecticut General Assembly , one House district had 191 people; another, 81,000 (424 times more).
* In theNew Hampshire General Court , one township with three people had a Representative in thelower house ; this was the same representation given another district with a population of 3,244. The vote of a resident of the first township was therefore 1,081 times more powerful at the Capitol.
* In theUtah State Legislature , the smallest district had 165 people, the largest 32,380 (196 times the population of the other).
* In theVermont General Assembly , the smallest district had 36 people, the largest 35,000, a ratio of almost 1,000 to 1.
*Los Angeles County, California , with 6 million people, had one member in theCalifornia State Senate , as did the 14,000 people of one rural county (428 times more).
* In theIdaho Legislature , the smallest Senate district had 951 people; the largest, 93,400 (97 times more).
* In theNevada Senate , 17 members represented as many as 127,000 or as few as 568 people, a ratio of 224 to 1.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 dissent, Justice
John Marshall Harlan II lambasted the Court for ignoring the original intention of theEqual Protection Clause , which he argued did not extend to voting rights. Harlan claimed the Court was imposing its own idea of "good government" on the states, stifling creativity and violatingfederalism . Although the Constitution explicitly grants two senators per state, regardless of population, Harlan further claimed that if Reynolds was correct, then the United States Constitution's own provision for two United States Senators from each state would then be Constitutionally suspect as the fifty states have anything but "substantially equal populations." "One person, one vote" was extended to Congressional (but not Senatorial) districts in 1964's "Wesberry v. Sanders "."Reynolds v. Sims" set off a legislative firestorm in the country. Senator
Everett Dirksen ofIllinois led a fight to pass aConstitutional amendment allowing unequal legislative districts. He warned that:"...the 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 theIllinois 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 byLos Angeles andSan Francisco ;Michigan byDetroit .."Dirksen was ultimately unsuccessful.
See also
*
Rotten borough , an English phenomenon
*TheShaff plan
*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 377 External links
*http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/branches/spc/udall/congrept/88th/641014.html
* [http://www.joincalifornia.com/page/8 California Legislative District Maps (1911-Present)]
* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533 The Supreme Court Decision, via FindLaw]
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.