The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that congressional districts should have equal population to the extent possible. The Court's talk about "debasement" and "dilution" of the vote is a model of circular reasoning, in which the premises of the argument feed on the conclusion. Reynolds v. Sims: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact, What Is Originalism? Which of the following is the best example of a national-level policy serving as a response to a collective-action dilemma among states? [it] to mean" that the Constitutional Convention had adopted a principle of "one person, one vote" in contravention of the qualifications for electors which the States imposed. See generally Sait, op. 2648, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. . What is the term used to describe a grant from the federal government to a state or locality with a general purpose that allows considerable freedom in how the money is spent? 1081 (remarks of Mr. Moser). 506,854378,499128,355, Montana(2). The voters alleged that the apportionment scheme violated several provisions of the Constitution, including Art I, sec 2. and the Fourteenth Amendment. With respect to apportionment of the House, Luce states: "Property was the basis, not humanity." . Did Tennessee deny Baker equal protection when it failed to update its apportionment plan? ." 333,290299,15634,134, Ohio(24). Despite a swell in population, certain urban areas were still receiving the same amount of representatives as rural areas with far less voters. All of the appellants do vote. . We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. . . [p33] Whenever the State Legislatures had a favorite measure to carry, they would take care so to mould their regulations as to favor the candidates they wished to succeed. Cf. I, 4, as placing "into the hands of the state legislatures" the power to regulate elections, but retaining for Congress "self-preserving power" to make regulations lest "the general government . 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. 2, c. 26, Schedule. When you visit the site, Dotdash Meredith and its partners may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. I, sec. 111, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. . at 489-490 (Rufus King of Massachusetts); id. May the State consider factors such as area or natural boundaries (rivers, mountain ranges) which are plainly relevant to the practicability of effective representation? We do not deem [Colegrove v. Green] . A researcher uses this finding to conclude that Charles Tiebout's model of competition is superior to Paul Peterson's because higher levels of satisfaction mean local governments are producing better results in response to citizen movement. Cf. If the Federal Constitution intends that, when qualified voters elect members of Congress, each vote be given as much weight as any other vote, then this statute cannot stand. founded in a vicious principle of representation and which must be as short-lived as it would be unjust. Act of Feb. 2, 1872, 2, 17 Stat. * The quotation is from Mr. Justice Rutledge's concurring opinion in Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. at 565. 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. Is an equal protection challenge to a malapportionment of state legislatures considered non-justiciable as a political question? 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. at 256-257. These were words of great latitude. The policy of referring the appointment of the House of Representatives to the people, and not to the Legislatures of the States, supposes that the result will be somewhat influenced by the mode, [sic] This view of the question seems to decide that the Legislatures of the States ought not to have the uncontrouled right of regulating the times places & manner of holding elections. I therefore cannot agree with Brother HARLAN that the supervisory power granted to Congress under Art. . . 1. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative. 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." These remarks of Madison were in response to a proposal to strike out the provision for congressional supervisory power over the regulation of elections in Art. . 697,567290,596406,971, Iowa(7). (d) Any Representative elected to the Congress from a district which does not conform to the requirements set forth in subsection (c) of this section shall be denied his seat in the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the House shall refuse his credentials. The right to vote is too important in our free society to be stripped of judicial protection by such an interpretation of Article I. [n5][p22]. . 1. 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. . Act of Feb. 25, 1882, 3, 22 Stat. Webviews 1,544,492 updated. 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. equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids . 57, Madison merely stated his assumption that Philadelphia's population would entitle it to two Representatives in answering the argument that congressional constituencies would be too large for good government. In this manner, the proportion of the representatives and of the constituents will remain invariably the same. Baker claimed the malapportionment of state legislatures is justiciable and the state of Tennessee argued such an issue is a political question not capable of being decided by the courts. Nothing that the Court does today will disturb the fact that, although in 1960 the population of an average congressional district was 410,481, [n11] the States of Alaska, Nevada, and Wyoming [p29] each have a Representative in Congress, although their respective populations are 226,167, 285,278, and 330,066. 575, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. Both sides seemed for a time to be hopelessly obstinate. Compare N.J.Const., 1776, Art. . I, 4. 13. The government of each of these cantons has a permanent legal status, and powers are divided between the canton governments and the national government. 73, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. [n20]. . No. When interpretations of the two constitutions are compared, despite important similarities, the influence of differences in politics, history, and context is also apparent. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368. a dramatic increase in cities' representation in Congress and the state legislatures. . On the contrary, the Court substitutes its own judgment for that of the Congress. Like its American counterpart, Australias constitution is initially divided into distinct chapters dealing with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The Federalist, No. The five States are Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Rhode Island. Time12345NonconformitiesperUnit73634Time678910NonconformitiesperUnit53520. redistricting, violates the Now, he has a new philosophy on life. . . I, 2, was never mentioned. [sic] and might materially affect the appointments. . She has also worked at the Superior Court of San Francisco's ACCESS Center. I would enter an additional caveat. . Eighty-five percent responded that they were more satisfied with the services at their new locale. [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. 276, reversed and remanded. [n56][p48]. 30-41, the Court's opinion supports its holding only with the bland assertion that "the principle of a House of Representatives elected by the People'" would be "cast aside" if "a vote is worth more in one district than in another," ante, p. 8, i.e., if congressional districts within a State, each electing a single Representative, are not equal in population . [n14], If the power is not immediately derived from the people in proportion to their numbers, we may make a paper confederacy, but that will be all. There is no entanglement doctrine in Australian constitutional law. Powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. In the ratifying conventions, there was no suggestion that the provisions of Art. He developed a six prong test to guide the Court in future decisions regarding whether or not a question is "political." It is whimsical to assert in the face of this guarantee that an absolute principle of "equal representation in the House for equal numbers of people" is "solemnly embodied" in Article I. 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. This decision, coupled with the one person, one vote opinions decided around the same time, had a massive impact on the makeup of the House of Representatives and on electoral politics in general. Three levels of federal courts Supreme, Circuit (Appellate), Federal district Stare decisis Let the decision stand. It cannot be supposed that delegates to the Convention would have labored to establish a principle of equal representation only to bury it, one would have thought beyond discovery, in 2, and omit all mention of it from 4, which deals explicitly with the conduct of elections. [n19]. . 400,573274,194126,379, Nebraska(3). Within seven weeks of the decision, lawsuits had been filed in 22 states asking for relief in terms of unequal apportionment standards. 689,555318,942370,613, Florida(12). [n37] In No. Likewise, in interpreting the non-establishment clause, Australias court has maintained the older American view that the clause prohibits the establishment of an official state church but allows non-discriminatory aid to be given to religious schools and other organizations. . The Court purports to find support for its position in the third paragraph of Art. . ; H.R. If Congress failed in exercising its powers, whereby standards of fairness are offended, the remedy ultimately lies with the people. [n2], Notwithstanding these findings, a majority of the court dismissed the complaint, citing as their guide Mr. Justice Frankfurter's minority opinion in Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, an opinion stating that challenges to apportionment [p4] of congressional districts raised only "political" questions, which were not justiciable. Since Baker is an individual bringing suit against the state government, no separation of power concerns result. [p24]. 48. Which of the following policies expanded federal power during the Progressive era (1896-1913)? The General Assembly of the Georgia Legislature has been recently reapportioned [*] as a result of the order of the three-judge District Court in Toombs v. Fortson, 205 F.Supp. It is surely beyond debate that the Constitution did not require the slave States to apportion their Representatives according to the dispersion of slaves within their borders. 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. of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to this State. . The democratic theme is further expressed in the Constitution by the declaration that the two houses of the legislature are to be chosen by the people and by the requirement that the Constitution can be amended only by a majority of electors in both the federation as a whole and a majority of the states. [n47]. Carr in 1962, the Supreme Court determined that this sort of population disparity violated the federal constitution. at 583. Which of the following clauses in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make whatever laws are "necessary and proper" in order to execute its enumerated powers? Pp. (Emphasis added.) In 1960, the federal census revealed that the state's population had grown by more than a million, totaling 3,567,089, and its voting population had swelled to 2,092,891. . Wesberry v. Sanders (No. . [n36] The delegates referred to rotten borough apportionments in some of the state legislatures as the kind of objectionable governmental action that the Constitution should not tolerate in the election of congressional representatives. [n16]. The cases of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) established what legal precedent? Decision: The Warren Court reached a 6-2 verdict in favor of Baker. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 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. 552,863227,692325,171, Oregon(4). The constitutional scheme vests in the States plenary power to regulate the conduct of elections for Representatives, and, in order to protect the Federal Government, provides for congressional supervision of the States' exercise of their power. And, considering the state governments and general government as distinct bodies, acting in different and independent capacities for the people, it was thought the particular regulations should be submitted to the former, and the general regulations to the latter. [n32] Responding [p39] to the suggestion that the Congress would favor the seacoast, he asserted that the courts would not uphold, nor the people obey, "laws inconsistent with the Constitution." . Thorpe, op. [n26] The deadlock was finally broken when a majority of the States agreed to what has been called the Great Compromise, [n27] based on a proposal which had been repeatedly advanced by Roger [p13] Sherman and other delegates from Connecticut. 37. It is true that the opening sentence of Art. I, 2, is concerned, the disqualification would be within Georgia's power. In addition, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas each elected one of their Representatives at large. References to Old Sarum (ante, p. 15), for example, occurred during the debate on the method of apportionment of Representatives among the States. I, 2, of the Constitution provides that Representatives are to be chosen "by the People of the several States. 248 (1962). . I, 4, in sustaining this power. WebWesberry v. Sanders by Tom C. Clark Concurrence/dissent. The claim for judicial relief in this case strikes at one of the fundamental doctrines of our system of government, the separation of powers. The stability of this institution ultimately depends not only upon its being alert to keep the other branches of government within constitutional bounds, but equally upon recognition of the limitations on the Court's own functions in the constitutional system. . at 663. 38.See, e.g., 2 Works of Alexander Hamilton (Lodge ed.1904) 25 (statement to New York ratifying convention). The companion cases to Smiley v. Holm presented no different issues, and were decided wholly on the basis of the decision in that case. . In answering this question, the Court was concerned to carry out the intention of Congress in enacting the 1929 Act.See id. In some of the States, the difference is very material. [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 separation of powersespecially the separation of judicial poweris an important principle in Australian constitutional law. 32-33, indicate that, under 4, the state legislatures, subject only to the ultimate control of Congress, could district as they chose. Federal executive power in Australia is vested in Britains queen and exercised by a governor-general formally appointed by the queen. . It was found impossible to fix the time, place, and manner, of the election of representatives in the Constitution. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. . Yet, even here, the U.S. model was influential. 585,586255,165330,421, NewYork(41). . [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." The principle decided in Marbury v. Madison has always been regarded as axiomatic in Australian constitutional law. Art. For the statutory standards under which these commissions operate, see House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts of 1949, 12 13 Geo. [n4] Thus, today's decision impugns the validity of the election of 398 Representatives from 37 States, leaving a "constitutional" House of 37 members now sitting. XIII, with N.J.Const., 1844, Art. . . There are some important differences of course. 1. 539,592373,583166,009, Kentucky(7). The difference between the largest and smallest districts in Connecticut is, however, 370,613. WESBERRY v. SANDERS 376 U.S. 1 (1964) After baker v. carr (1962) held that legislative districting presented a justiciable controversy, the Supreme Court held in Wesberry, 81, that a state's congressional districts are required by Article I, section 2, of the Constitution to be as equal in population as is practicable. [n33] (The particular possibilities that Steele had in mind were apparently that Congress might attempt to prescribe the qualifications for electors or "to make the place of elections inconvenient." 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. [n44] In 1872, Congress required that Representatives, be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory, and containing as [p43] nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants, . . . The United States Supreme Court ruled that federal courts could hear and rule on cases in which plaintiffs allege that re-apportionment plans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This would leave a House of Representatives composed of the 22 Representatives elected at large plus eight elected in congressional districts. . [n19], To this end, he proposed a single legislative chamber in which each State, as in the Confederation, was to have an equal vote. Attorneys on behalf of the state argued that the Supreme Court lacked grounds and jurisdiction to even hear the case. How can it be, then, that this very same sentence prevents Georgia from apportioning its Representatives as it chooses? . If youre looking for levity, look no further. Most importantly, the history of how the House of Representatives came into being demonstrates that the founders wanted to ensure that each person had an equal voice in the political process in the House of Representatives. The Court's "as nearly as is practicable" formula sweeps a host of questions under the rug. cit. Smiley, Koenig, and Carroll settled the issue in favor of justiciability of questions of congressional redistricting. (Emphasis added.) Ante, p. 15. Baker v. Carr: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact - ThoughtCo 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. . Baker has standing to challenge Tennessees apportionment statutes. 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. . 478,962376,336102,626, Michigan(19). Since there is only one Congressman for each district, appellants claimed debasement of their right to vote resulting from the 1931 Georgia apportionment statute and failure of the legislature to realign that State's congressional districts more nearly to equalize the population of each. at 257 (Charles Pinckney, South Carolina). I, 2 and 4, the surrounding text, and the relevant history [p42] are all in strong and consistent direct contradiction of the Court's holding. (For more detail, see here). I, 2,that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" means that, as nearly as is practicable, one person's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. None of the Court's references [p34] to the ratification debates supports the view that the provision for election of Representatives "by the People" was intended to have any application to the apportionment of Representatives within the States; in each instance, the cited passage merely repeats what the Constitution itself provides: that Representatives were to be elected by the people of the States. Baker v. Carr, supra, considered a challenge to a 1901 Tennessee statute providing for apportionment of State Representatives and Senators under the State's constitution, which called for apportionment among counties or districts "according to the number of qualified voters in each." [n21] Mr. King noted the situation in Connecticut, where "Hartford, one of their largest towns, sends no more delegates than one of their smallest corporations," and in South Carolina: The back parts of Carolina have increased greatly since the adoption of their constitution, and have frequently attempted an alteration of this unequal mode of representation, but the members from Charleston, having the balance so much in their favor, will not consent to an alteration, and we see that the delegates from Carolina in Congress have always been chosen by the delegates of that city. 663,510198,236465,274, Arkansas(4). Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth . * Georgia Laws, Sept.-Oct. 1962, Extra.Sess. It goes without saying that it is beyond the province of this Court to decide whether equally populated districts is the preferable method for electing Representatives, whether state legislatures would have acted more fairly or wisely had they adopted such a method, or whether Congress has been derelict in not requiring state legislatures to follow that course. 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. [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."
similarities between baker v carr and wesberry v sanders