. . at 533. The provision for representation of each State in the House of Representatives is not a mere exception to the principle framed by the majority; it shows that no such principle is to be found. [n55][p47]. Some of them, of course, would ordinarily come from districts the populations of which were about that which would result from an apportionment based solely on population. "Baker v. Carr: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact." Despite a swell in population, certain urban areas were still receiving the same amount of representatives as rural areas with far less voters. 2 & 3 & 7 & 3 \\ The difference between challenges brought under the Equal Protection Clause and the Guaranty Clause is not enough to decide against existing precedent. \end{array} In 1960, the population base was 178,559,217, and the number of Representatives was 435. . Since there is only one Congressman for each district, this inequality of population means that the Fifth District's Congressman has to represent from two to three times as many people as do Congressmen from some of the other Georgia districts. H.R. Popularity with the representative's constituents. The acts in question were filing false election returns, United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383, alteration of ballots and false certification of votes, United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, and stuffing the ballot box, United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385. [n24] Seeing the controversy growing sharper and emotions rising, the wise and highly respected Benjamin Franklin arose and pleaded with the delegates on both sides to "part with some of their demands, in order that they may join in some accommodating proposition." A single Congressman represents from two to three times as many Fifth District voters as are represented by each of the Congressmen from the other Georgia congressional districts. [n16]. 814, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. at 180, 456 (Hugh Williamson of North Carolina); id. Were they exclusively under the control of the state governments, the general government might easily be dissolved. The fallacy of the Court's reasoning in this regard is illustrated by its slide, obscured by intervening discussion (see ante pp. Since then, despite repeated efforts to obtain congressional action again, Congress has continued to leave the problem and its solution to the States. As there stated: It was manifestly the intention of the Congress not to reenact the provision as to compactness, contiguity, and equality in population with respect to the districts to be created pursuant to the reapportionment under the Act of 1929. WebBaker v Carr, Wesberry v Sanders, Reynolds v Sims (states) Appellate Jurisdiction Only hears cases based off of appeals from lower courts Original Jurisdiction May be the first court to hear or review a case. 841; 87th Cong., 1st Sess. [n15], Repeatedly, delegates rose to make the same point: that it would be unfair, unjust, and contrary to common sense to give a small number of people as many Senators or Representatives as were allowed to much larger groups [n16] -- in short, as James Wilson of Pennsylvania [p11] put it, "equal numbers of people ought to have an equal no. Compare N.J.Const., 1776, Art. The District Court was wrong to find that the Fifth district voters presented a purely political question which could not be decided by a court, and should be dismissed for want of equity. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, supports the principle that voters have standing to sue with regard to apportionment matters, and that such claims are justiciable. [n48]. The Court followed these precedents in Colegrove, although over the dissent of three of the seven Justices who participated in that decision. [I]t was thought that the regulation of time, place, and manner, of electing the representatives, should be uniform throughout the continent. . 5099, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. Tennessee had undergone a population shift in which thousands of people flooded urban areas, abandoning the rural countryside. Which of the following policies expanded federal power during the Progressive era (1896-1913)? In the absence of a reapportionment, all the Representatives from a State found to have violated the standard would presumably have to be elected at large. 575,385332,844242,541, California(38). No. A majority of the Court in Colegrove v. Green felt, upon the authority of Smiley, that the complaint presented a justiciable controversy not reserved exclusively to Congress. None of those cases has the slightest bearing on the present situation. The provision for equally populated districts was dropped in 1929, [n47] and has not been revived, although the 1929 provisions for apportionment have twice been amended, and, in 1941, were made generally applicable to subsequent censuses and apportionments. at 256-257. of representatives . [n10] This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. Gibbons[p7]v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. . However, in my view, Brother HARLAN has clearly demonstrated that both the historical background and language preclude a finding that Art. . from that state [South Carolina], will not be chosen by the people, but will be the representatives of a faction of that state. The Court's "as nearly as is practicable" formula sweeps a host of questions under the rug. I, 2, members of the House of Representatives should be chosen "by the People of the several States," and should be "apportioned among the several States . Is the relevant statistic the greatest disparity between any two districts in the State, or the average departure from the average population per district, or a little of both? Baker v. Carr outlined that legislative apportionment is a justiciable non-political question. Should the people of any state by any means be deprived of the right of suffrage, it was judged proper that it should be remedied by the general government. . The shortness of the time remaining [before the next election] makes it doubtful whether action could, or would, be taken in time to secure for petitioners the effective relief they seek. With this single qualification, I join the dissent because I think MR. JUSTICE HARLAN has unanswerably demonstrated that Art. Not only can this right to vote not be denied outright, it cannot, consistently with Article I, be destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, or diluted by stuffing of the ballot box, see United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385. The main reason for this is that Australians modeled their 1901 constitution on the American example. May the State consider factors such as area or natural boundaries (rivers, mountain ranges) which are plainly relevant to the practicability of effective representation? Id. Baker v. Carr (1962) was a landmark case concerning re-apportionment and redistricting. I, 4, which the Court so pointedly neglects. . It took only two years for 26 states to ratify new apportionment plans with respect to population counts. [n17]. Id. at 3. The majoritys three rulings should be no more than whether: In addition, the proper place for this trial is the trial court, not here. While "free Persons" and those "bound to Service for a Term of Years" were counted in determining representation, Indians not taxed were not counted, and "three fifths of all other Persons" (slaves) were included in computing the States' populations. Elected politicians are the real locus of executive power. The companion cases to Smiley v. Holm presented no different issues, and were decided wholly on the basis of the decision in that case. 45-46. 39-40. 248 (1962). 2 of the Constitution, which states that Representatives be chosen by the People of the several States. Allowing for huge disparities in population between districts would violate that fundamental principle. Mr. Justice Rutledge, in Colgerove, believed that the Court should exercise its equitable discretion to refuse relief because. . . Before coming to grips with the reasoning that carries such extraordinary consequences, it is important to have firmly in mind the provisions of Article I of the Constitution which control this case: Section 2. 4340, and H.R. He relied on Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, which, after full discussion of Colegrove and all the opinions in it, held that allegations of disparities of population in state legislative districts raise justiciable claims on which courts may grant relief. Cookies collect information about your preferences and your devices and are used to make the site work as you expect it to, to understand how you interact with the site, and to show advertisements that are targeted to your interests. Cook v. Fortson, 329 U.S. 675, 678. 3 & 6 & 8 & 5 \\ . . 374 U.S. 802. How would this new jurisdiction best be described? . . There is a further basis for demonstrating the hollowness of the Court's assertion that Article I requires "one man's vote in a congressional election . The Court does have the power to decide this case, in contrast to Justice Harlans dissent. 42. The populations of the largest and smallest districts in each State and the difference between them are contained in an Appendix to this opinion. What is the most valid criticism of this study? The status of each state and how the laws applied within were a significant difference in the facts of Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), which had an impact on the application of the Supreme Court's judgement. In New York City, a single executive is popularly elected and he or she appoints officials in charge of various departments. 588,933301,872287,061, Colorado(4). [n40] In the state conventions, speakers urging ratification of the Constitution emphasized the theme of equal representation in the House which had permeated the debates in Philadelphia. . Wesberry v. Sanders is a landmark case because it mandated that congressional districts throughout the country must be roughly equal in population. . . Given these similarities, with certain important differences, the way the two constitutions have been interpreted by the courts offers an interesting study in the influence of textual language, structural relationships, historical intentions, and political values on constitutional interpretation generally. Now, he has a new philosophy on life. . . . Baker v. Carr (1962) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case and an important point in the legal fight for the One man, one vote principle. Spitzer, Elianna. During the Revolutionary War, the rebelling colonies were loosely allied in the Continental Congress, a body with authority to do little more than pass resolutions and issue requests for men and supplies. [n30] The Constitution embodied Edmund Randolph's proposal for a periodic census to ensure "fair representation of the people," [n31] an idea endorsed by Mason as assuring that "numbers of inhabitants" [p14] should always be the measure of representation in the House of Representatives. 13, 14. Since the right to vote is inherent in the Constitution, each vote should hold equal weight. I, 2, of the Constitution provides that Representatives are to be chosen "by the People of the several States. 7. [n29], The debates at the Convention make at least one fact abundantly clear: that, when the delegates agreed that the House should represent "people," they intended that, in allocating Congressmen, the number assigned to each State should be determined solely by the number of the State's inhabitants. The upshot of all this is that the language of Art. I love them.. The legislative history of the 1929 Act is carefully reviewed in Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1. Accordingly, those Fifth district voters believed that their political voice was less, or debased, when compared to other voters in Georgia. Star Athletica, L.L.C. 505,465463,80041,665, Maryland(8). Similarly, the external affairs power (s. 51(xxix)) has been interpreted to enable the federal government to legislate in areas outside of its enumerated sec. WebBaker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the equal I, 2. The voters alleged that the apportionment scheme violated several provisions of the Constitution, including Art I, sec 2. and the Fourteenth Amendment. . People doubt her as a female roofer: Were proving them wrong every day, She rescues baby squirrels: Theyre quite destructive. I, 4. Suppose that you actually observe 3 or more of the sample of 10 bridges with inspection ratings of 4 or below in 2020. The question of what relief should be given we leave for further consideration and decision by the District Court in light of existing circumstances. an aspect of government from which the judiciary, in view of what is involved, has been excluded by the clear intention of the Constitution. 575, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. . This provision reinforces the evident constitutional scheme of leaving to the Congress the protection of federal interests involved in the selection of members of the Congress. [n26] Mr. Smith proposed to add to the resolution, . Perhaps it then will be objected that, from the supposed opposition of interests in the federal legislature, they may never agree upon any regulations; but regulations necessary for the interests of the people can never be opposed to the interests of either of the branches of the federal legislature, because that the interests of the people require that the mutual powers of that legislature should be preserved unimpaired in order to balance the government. After the Gulf War was over, 151515 influential news organizations sent a letter to the secretary of defense complaining that the rules for reporting the war were designed more to control the news than to facilitate it. Other provisions of the Constitution would, of course, be relevant, but, so far as Art. The assemblage at the Philadelphia Convention was by no means committed to popular government, and few of the delegates had sympathy for the habits or institutions of democracy. The Court gives scant attention, and that not on the merits, to Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, which is directly in point; the Court there affirmed dismissal of a complaint alleging that. Members of the first are elected from each state in proportion to that states population; in the second, each state is represented by the same number of senators (in Australia, it is currently 12 senators for each state, while the two mainland territories have two senators each). . at 50-51 (Rufus King, Massachusetts); 3 id. It was found necessary to leave the regulation of these, in the first place, to the state governments, as being best acquainted with the situation of the people, subject to the control of the general government, in order to enable it to produce uniformity and prevent its own dissolution. Despite the apparent fear that 4 would be abused, no one suggested that it could safely be deleted because 2 made it unnecessary. supra, 93-96. . . 442,406353,15689,250, Kansas(5). The extent to which the Court departs from accepted principles of adjudication is further evidenced by the irrelevance to today's issue of the cases on which the Court relies. . 42-45. In deciding whether this law is constitutional, which of the following issues are the courts likely to consider most important? The only State in which the average population per district is greater than 500,000 is Connecticut, where the average population per district is 507,047 (one Representative being elected at large). Finally in this array of hurdles to its decision which the Court surmounts only by knocking them down is 4 of Art. The cases of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) established what legal precedent? [n23], The dispute came near ending the Convention without a Constitution. Legislature, as it was presumable that the Counties having the power in the former case would secure it to themselves in the latter. Is the number of voters or the number of inhabitants controlling? What is done today saps the political process. [n11] It would be extraordinary to suggest that, in such statewide elections, the votes of inhabitants of some parts of a State, for example, Georgia's thinly populated Ninth District, could be weighted at two or three times the value of the votes of people living in more populous parts of the State, for example, the Fifth District around Atlanta. Today's decision has portents for our society and the Court itself which should be recognized. As late as 1842, seven States still conducted congressional elections at large. . . to be a precedent for dismissal based on the nonjusticiability of a political question involving the Congress as here, but we do deem it to be strong authority for dismissal for want of equity when the following factors here involved are considered on balance: a political question involving a coordinate branch of the federal government; a political question posing a delicate problem difficult of solution without depriving others of the right to vote by district, unless we are to redistrict for the state; relief may be forthcoming from a properly apportioned state legislature, and relief may be afforded by the Congress. In No. . cit. . IV Elliot's Debates 257. 4820, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. . Voters in the Fifth district sued the Governor and Secretary of State of Georgia, seeking to invalidate Georgias apportionment structure because their votes were given less weight compared to voters in other districts. . . . This view was articulated in the landmark Engineers case, which held that the federal government could employ its industrial arbitration power (s. 51(xxxv)) to regulate the employment conditions of state employees (Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, (1920) 28 C.L.R. . Govt. 2a to provide: (c) Each State entitled to more than one Representative in Congress under the apportionment provided in subsection (a) of this section, shall establish for each Representative a district composed of contiguous and compact territory, and the number of inhabitants contained within any district so established shall not vary more than 10 percentum from the number obtained by dividing the total population of such States, as established in the last decennial census, by the number of Representatives apportioned to such State under the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. . . For a period of about 50 years, therefore, Congress, by repeated legislative act, imposed on the States the requirement that congressional districts be equal in population. . He states: There can be no shadow of question that populations were accepted as a measure of material interests -- landed, agricultural, industrial, commercial, in short, property. No one would deny that the equal protection clause would also prohibit a law that would expressly give certain citizens a half-vote and others a full vote. See also the remarks of Mr. Graham. Did Georgias apportionment statute violate the Constitution by allowing for large differences in population between districts even though each district had one representative? WebREYNOLDS v. SIMS ABROAD: A BRITON COMPARES APPORTIONMENT CRITERIA VIVIAN VALE University of Southampton HE CASE of Baker v. Carr, and its progeny Wesberry v. Sanders to Rey-nolds v. Sims and beyond, seemed to have provided American political scientists and legal commentators with native pasture rich enough for many years' grazing. Justice William Brennan delivered the 6-2 decision. There is nothing to indicate any limitation whatsoever on this grant of plenary initial and supervisory power. . [n47]. See Thorpe, op. a group of citizens proposes a law banning gay marriage in a state, which the public then votes on in an election. . II Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution (2d ed. Only in this context, in order to establish that the right to vote in a congressional election was a right protected by federal law, did the Court hold that the right was dependent on the Constitution and not on the law of the States. (We thank the government of Qubec and Forum of Federations for financial and logistical support in producing this book.). I, 2, was being discussed, there are repeated references to apportionment and related problems affecting the States' selection of Representatives in connection with Art. The issue in the case is whether or not the complaint sufficiently alleged a violation of a federal right to the extent a district court would have jurisdiction. Without these powers in Congress, the people can have no remedy; but the 4th section provides a remedy, a controlling power in a legislature, composed of senators and representatives of twelve states, without the influence of our commotions and factions, who will hear impartially, and preserve and restore [p36] to the people their equal and sacred rights of election. [n14] Such expressions prove as little on one side of this case as they do on the other. Since no slave voted, the inclusion of three-fifths of their number in the basis of apportionment gave the favored States representation far in excess of their voting population. I, 4, is the exclusive remedy. Is the standard an absolute or relative one, and, if the latter, to what is the difference in population to be related? Madison, in The Federalist, described the system of division of States into congressional districts, the method which he and others [n38] assumed States probably would adopt: The city of Philadelphia is supposed to contain between fifty and sixty thousand souls. See infra, pp. A) The only difference in the two cases is that The Baker case was related to state legislative districts. Act of June 25, 1842, 2, 5 Stat. Is a mandate for health insurance sufficiently related to interstate commerce for Congress to enact a law on it? . The promise of judicial intervention in matters of this sort cannot but encourage popular inertia in efforts for political reform through the political process, with the inevitable result that the process is itself weakened. The state claimed redistricting was a political question and non-justiciable. We therefore hold that the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint. The five States are Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Rhode Island. If, on remand, the trial court is of the opinion that there is likelihood of the General Assembly's reapportioning the State in an appropriate manner, I believe that coercive relief should be deferred until after the General Assembly has had such an opportunity. I, which states simply: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. [n44] Congress' power, said John Steele at the North Carolina convention, was not to be used to allow Congress to create rotten boroughs; in answer to another delegate's suggestion that Congress might use its power to favor people living near the seacoast, Steele said that Congress "most probably" would "lay the state off into districts," and, if it made laws "inconsistent with the Constitution, independent judges will not uphold them, nor will the people obey them." [n39]. I, 2, of the Constitution, which, carrying out the ideas of Madison and those of like views, provides that Representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States," and shall be "apportioned among the several States . . Believing that the complaint fails to disclose a constitutional claim, I would affirm the judgment below dismissing the complaint. . The history of the Constitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. Does the number of districts within the State have any relevance? . 3 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (Farrand ed.1911) 14 (hereafter cited as "Farrand"). Cf. In my view, we should therefore vacate this judgment and remand the case for a hearing [p20] on the merits. . Congress exercised its power to regulate elections for the House of Representatives for the first time in 1842, when it provided that Representatives from States "entitled to more than one Representative" should be elected by districts of contiguous territory, "no one district electing more than one Representative." How can it be, then, that this very same sentence prevents Georgia from apportioning its Representatives as it chooses? . [n53] None of them became law. Justice Brennan wrote that the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction in relation to apportionment. Justice Brennan drew a line between "political questions" and "justiciable questions" by defining the former. Baker v. Carr stated that states have to redraw district lines but the population in every district must be equal, to correct malapportionment. [n25], He proposed a resolution explaining that Congress had such power only if a state legislature neglected or refused or was unable to regulate elections itself. Why? We have been told (with a dictatorial air) that this is the last moment for a fair trial in favor of a good Government. . The delegates did have the former intention and made clear [p27] provision for it. Cf. . . The district court dismissed the complaint for non-justiciability and want 536,029263,850272,179, Maine(2). . 5 & 4 & 10 & 0 The truth is that it does not. [n23], Mr. PARSONS contended for vesting in Congress the powers contained in the 4th section [of Art. They brought this class action under 42 U.S.C. b. . 11. While it may not be possible to draw congressional districts with mathematical precision, that is no excuse for ignoring our Constitution's plain objective of making equal representation for equal numbers of people the fundamental goal for the House of Representatives. Moreover, by focusing exclusively on numbers in disregard of the area and shape of a congressional district as well as party affiliations within the district, the Court deals in abstractions which will be recognized even by the politically unsophisticated to have little relevance to the realities of political life. Baker petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States. 572,654317,973254,681, Virginia(10). Whether the electors should vote by ballot or viva voce, should assemble at this place or that place, should be divided into districts or all meet at one place, shd all vote for all the representatives, or all in a district vote for a number allotted to the district, these & many other points would depend on the Legislatures. 689,555318,942370,613, Florida(12). It established the right of federal courts to review redistricting issues, when just a few years earlier such matter werecategorized as political questions outside the jurisdiction of the courts. But nothing in Baker is contradictory to the view that, political question and other objections to "justiciability" aside, the Constitution vests exclusive authority to deal with the problem of this case in the state legislatures and the Congress. The complaint also fails to adequately show Tennessees current system of apportionment is so arbitrary and capricious as to violate the Equal Protection Clause. I, 4. [sic] and might materially affect the appointments. The Federalist, No. [n13] It freezes upon both, for no reason other than that it seems wise to the majority of the present Court, a particular political theory for the selection of Representatives. WebBaker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases.The court summarized its Baker In this manner, the proportion of the representatives and of the constituents will remain invariably the same.