Reapportionment

Harlan's rationale for dissent

"The history of the adoption of the 14th amendment, and more specifically the equal protection clause, wasn't specifically suppose to apply to the apportionment of districts, and he thought that the court "adds something to the constitution that was deliberately excluded from it" to push what they see fit. Harlan's interpretation was strict. He also went on to note that legislatures can represent their electors only by speaking for their interests, whether they be economic, political, or social, because these reflect the places in which these people live (this directly opposed the famous quote from Reynolds' apportionment). He thought "when governments failed to act on a serious problem, the majority was likely to find a constitutional principle that justified judicial intervention."

Harman v. Forssenius

(Death of the Poll Tax in VA) Harman v. Forssenius was a 1965 United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that Virginia's partial elimination of the poll tax violated the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Virginia attempted to avoid the effect of the 24th Amendment by creating an "escape clause" to the poll tax. In lieu of paying the poll tax, a prospective voter could apply for a certificate establishing a place of residence in Virginia. The application had to be made six months prior to an election, a measure expected to decrease the number of eligible voters.[1] In the 1965 Supreme Court decision of Harman v. Forssenius, the Court unanimously found such measures unconstitutional and declared that, for federal elections, "the poll tax is abolished absolutely as a prerequisite to voting, and no equivalent or milder substitute may be imposed."[2] This decision essentially was the death knell for the poll tax in Virginia.

Freedom Summer (Reaction to reapportionment from the disenfranchised)

1- %40 of the Mississippi population was black, and not even %7 were registered voters. 2- SNCC and CORE designated the summer of '64 as "Freedom Summer, meaning northern and southern students and activists would come into the state and conduct a massive voter registration drive. After northern whites were killed by the KKK, this gained considerable favorable media attention.

Reaction to reapportionment

1- A failed moratorium pushed by Dickerson flopped 2- The scotus received a smaller pay raise than other federal justices and people were vocal about their dissatisfactions with recent decisions when giving opinions. 3- Dirksen tried to undo Reynolds through constitutional amendment, and he had attached it to a commemorative bill, though this flopped too.

Avery v. Midland County

Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968), is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that local government districts had to be roughly equal in population. Background Having already held in 1965 in Reynolds v. Sims that disparities in legislative districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court applied the same logic to local government districts for bodies which also have broad policy-making functions. The case was brought by Henry Clifton Avery, Jr., more commonly known as Hank Avery, who was Mayor of the City of Midland, Texas. He challenged the districting scheme for the Commissioners Court of Midland County, a five-member county commission with four Commissioners elected in single-member districts and the County Judge elected at-large.[1] One Commissioner's district, which included almost all the City of Midland, had a population of 67,906, according to 1963 estimates. The others, all rural areas, had populations respectively, of about 852; 414; and 828. Avery brought his case in Texas District Court in Midland. Three of the four commissioners testified at trial that population was not a major factor in the districting process. The trial court ruled for petitioner that each district under the State's constitutional apportionment standard should have "substantially the same number of people." An intermediate appellate court reversed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed that judgment, holding that under the Federal and State Constitutions the districting scheme was impermissible "for the reasons stated by the trial court." It held, however, that the work actually done by the County Commissioners "disproportionately concerns the rural areas" and that such factors as "number of qualified voters, land areas, geography, miles of county roads, and taxable values" could justify apportionment otherwise than on a basis of substantially equal populations. Opinions White- "The constitution permits no substantial variation from equal population in drawing districts for units of local government" Harlan & Stewart & Fortas - "The functions of government were to complex to be restrained by Reynolds"

3 - Baker v. Carr (1962)

Baker v. Carr (1962): The redrawing of state legislative districts is NOT a political matter, thereby making such a matter judicable by the court. Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment at issue made it into a constitutional issue. --- Facts of the case Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state. Districts with 2.3k voters could have one seat while districts with 2m voters had seven, it wasn't fair. It was initially thrown out in federal court bc Colegrove v. Green established federal courts couldn't hear "political" cases. Question Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? Conclusion 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 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. Baker was the end of rural domination of state legislatures and the beginning of states dealing with problems of their urban majorities due to the equal representation of voters.

McGowan v. Maryland (pre-baker) (14th example)

CITATION 366 US 420 (1961) ARGUED Dec 8, 1960 DECIDED May 29, 1961 Facts of the case Several employes of a discount department store sold a few items, such as floor wax and loose-leaf notebooks, to customers on a Sunday. By doing so, they violated Maryland's blue laws which only allow certain items, such as drugs, tobacco, newspapers and some foodstuffs, to be sold on Sundays. Question Do Maryland's blue laws violate the Free Exercise and Religious Establishment clauses of the First Amendment? Conclusion No. The Court found that the blue laws did not violate the Free Exercise Clause because the employees allege only economic injury and not infringement on their own religious practices. The Court also found that the blue laws did not violate the division between church and state. Sunday closing laws started out to facilitate church attendance in colonial America; however, the present Maryland laws are based on secular rather than religious state interests. The laws are to improve the "health, safety, recreation, and general well-being" of citizens. The present purpose of the laws is to provide a uniform day of rest for all. The fact that this day is of particular significance for various Christian sects does not bar the State from achieving its secular goals.

Powell v. McCormack

CITATION 395 US 486 (1969) ARGUED Apr 21, 1969 DECIDED Jun 16, 1969 Facts of the case Adam Clayton Powell pecked at his fellow representatives from his unassailable perch in New York's Harlem. Powell had been embroiled in controversy inside and outside Washington. When Powell failed to heed civil proceedings against him in New York, a judge held him in criminal contempt. His problems were only beginning. He won reelection in 1966 but the House of Representatives voted to exclude him. Question May the House of Representatives exclude a duly elected member if the member has satisfied the standing requirements of age, citizenship and residence as articulated in Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution? Conclusion No. The Court noted that the proceedings against Powell were intended to exclude and not expel him from the chamber. That is an important distinction to recognize since the House does have the power under Article I, Section 5 to expel members. However, expulsion was not the purpose of the proceedings in this case. After analyzing the Framers' debates on this issue, Chief Justice Warren concluded that since Powell had been lawfully elected by his constituents and since he met the constitutional requirements for membership in the House, that the chamber was powerless to exclude him. This case was reminiscent of Baker because many thought that his internal congressional matter was political in nature, though this allowed warren to call on Marbury by asserting that they (SCOTUS) were the ultimate interpreters of the constitution

Clark & Stewart's dissent for reapportionment

Clark - Felt that the majority had gone beyond the necessities of what needed to be done in these cases, especially by completely disregarding the federal analogy Stewart- Complained the majority bound the 50 states to their decision without considering the individualized and differentiated characteristics of each State, like geography, history, population distribution, economic and political factors.

1 - Colegrove v. Green

Colegrove v. Green (1946): The drawing of congressional lines is an inherently political matter that should be left to the states and federal courts may not review political questions. --- Facts of the case Kenneth W. Colegrove, a citizen of Illinois and a Northwestern University political scientist, brought suit against Illinois officials to enjoin them from holding an upcoming election. Colegrove argued that the congressional districts "lacked compactness of territory and approximate equality of population." Question Did the Illinois congressional districts unconstitutionally violate principles of fair apportionment? Conclusion The Court held that the Illinois districts were constitutional, largely because existing laws imposed no requirements "as to the compactness, contiguity and equality in population of districts." In a plurality opinion, Frankfurter declined to involve the Court in the districting process, arguing that the political nature of apportionment precluded judicial intervention. "The remedy for unfairness in districting is to secure State legislatures that will apportion properly, or to invoke the ample powers of Congress."

Kirkpatrick v. Preisler & Wells v. Rockefeller

Established that equal districts had to be drawn up at near mathematical perfection with statistical accuracy. When the same thing happened with Wells, they were grouped into somewhat similar population sizes but also factored lines drawn on other factors like group interests. Brennan wanted it purely based on mathematical certainty and no other factors, Harland and White dissented.

Riley v. California

FACTS: Officer seized a smart phone from the defendant. The officers examined the content of the phone and found evidence of photos and videos that the defendant was a gang member. HOLDING: Cell phones place vast quantities of personal information in the hands of individuals. Therefore, officers must generally secure a warrant before conducting such a search. Balancing analysis used to determine if digital contents of cell phones are exempt from the general rule permitting a search incident to arrest. Degree to which searches invade privacy interests. Degree to which cell phones implicate the governmental interests. Officer safety? A cell phone is unlikely to pose any safety risk to an officer. Preventing destruction or loss of evidence? Evidence on the phone may be subject to destruction by a remote wiping process. Bottom Line: Officers may take physical possession of the phone ("secure" it) found on an arrestee. May examine the physical aspects of the device to assure that there is no danger. They may not examine even the call log - prohibition of examining any digital data.

Hoyt v. Florida (1961) (Pre-Baker) (14th example)

Facts of the case A Florida statute automatically exempted women from jury duty and did not place women on jury lists. Women could, however, volunteer and register for jury duty. After an all-male jury convicted Mrs. Hoyt for murdering her husband, she appealed the decision to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Court upheld the conviction. Question Did the Florida statute violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the statute was based on a reasonable classification and was therefore constitutional. Noting that women were "still regarded as the center of home and family life," the Court found that the states could relieve them from the civic responsibility of jury duty unless they themselves determined that such service was consistent with their own "special responsibilities." The Court held that the case was distinct from other cases involving racial discrimination in jury selection, and that male-female disproportions on jury lists carried no constitutional significance.

6 - Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado (Reynolds denied this)

Facts of the case Acting on behalf of several voters in the Denver area, Andres Lucas sued various officials connected with Colorado's elections challenging the apportionment of seats in both houses of the Colorado General Assembly. Under Colorado's apportionment plan, the House of Representatives was apportioned on the basis of population but the apportionment of the Senate was based on a combination of population and other factors (geography, compactness and contiguity, accessibility, natural boundaries, and conformity to historical divisions). Consequently, counties with only about one-third of the State's total population would elect a majority of the Senate; the maximum population-variance ratio would be about 3.6-to-1; and the chief metropolitan areas, with over two-thirds of the State's population, could elect only a bare majority of the Senate. When a three-judge District Court upheld the plan, stressing its recent approval by the electorate, the Supreme Court granted Lucas certiorari. Question Is a majority-approved state apportionment plan that permits one house of its congress to be largely apportioned on the basis of factors other than population distribution in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Conclusion Yes. In a 6-to-3 opinion, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause requires all districts to be substantially apportioned on a population bases. While noting that some deviation from strict population considerations may be permitted to offset minor underrepresentations of one group or another, the wholesale neglect of population considerations is unconstitutional. The Court added that although a majority of the Colorado electorate approved its apportionment scheme, this cannot override even a single individual's constitutionally protected right to cast an equally weighted vote. The apportionment of Colorado's Senate rendered population considerations virtually insignificant, and was therefore unconstitutional. -- Reynolds had held that everyone had a right to effective representation which the Colorado plan denied. "A citizen's constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it can be.

2 - Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960)

Facts of the case An act of the Alabama legislature re-drew the electoral district boundaries of Tuskegee, replacing what had been a region with a square shape with a twenty-eight sided figure. The effect of the new district was to exclude essentially all blacks from the city limits of Tuskegee and place them in a district where no whites lived. Question Did the redrawing of Tuskegee's electoral district boundaries violate the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents the United States or any individual state from denying a citizen the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude? Conclusion The unanimous Court held that Act 140 of the Alabama legislature violated the Fifteenth Amendment. Justice Frankfurter admitted that states are insulated from judicial review when they exercise power "wholly within the domain of state interest." However, in this case, Alabama's representatives were unable to identify "any countervailing municipal function" which the act was designed to serve. It was clear to the Court that the irregularly shaped district was drawn with only one purpose in mind, namely, to deprive blacks of political power.

Poe v. Ullman

Facts of the case An old Connecticut law prohibited the use of contraceptive devices and the giving of medical advice in the use of those devices. The law also applied to married couples. The Connecticut Attorney General threatened to enforce the law against three individuals in this case including Jane Doe (Doe v. Pullman). Mrs. Doe, having recovered from a tough pregnancy which threatened her life and left her with several emotional and physical disabilities, was informed by her physician that any additional pregnancies could be fatal. She challenged the Connecticut law since it criminalized her use of contraceptives. Question Did the Connecticut law violate liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion The Court chose to dismiss the case because it involved the threatened and not actual application of the Connecticut law. Since the statute had been on the state's books for over three-quarters of a century without ever having been enforced, the Court found no sense of "immediacy which is an indispensable condition of constitutional adjudication."

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections

Facts of the case Annie E. Harper, a resident of Virginia, filed suit alleging that the state's poll tax was unconstitutional. After a three-judge district court dismissed the complaint, the case went to the Supreme Court. This case was decided together with Butts v. Harrison. Question Did the Virginia poll tax violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that making voter affluence an electoral standard violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that wealth or fee-paying had no relation to voting qualifications. The Court also noted that the Equal Protection Clause was not "shackled to the political theory of a particular era" and that notions of what constituted equal treatment under the Clause were subject to change. The decision didn't even need to rely solely on the newly passed 24th amendment because it had already violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. --opinions-- Douglas - He claimed that it was a fundamental right to vote, and that was different from a constitutional right, though he failed to make a distinction. "Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one's ability to cast an intelligent ballot."

Griffin v. Illinois (1956)

Facts of the case Judson Griffin and James Crenshaw were indicted for armed robbery in Cook County, Illinois. Following their conviction, in preparation for filling for an appeal, Griffin and Crenshaw requested a transcript of their trial proceedings without cost, on the basis that they could not afford the standard fee for the transcript. The lower court dismissed the petition without hearing evidence. Question Did requiring Griffin and Crenshaw to pay a fee with their request for a transcript of their trial proceedings violate their rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion Yes. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court reasoned that there is "no meaningful distinction" between denying indigent defendants the right to appeal and denying them a trial. Because Illinois conceded that Griffin and Crenshaw could not file for appeal without a transcript, the Court found that their rights to due process and equal protection had been denied.

Katzenbach v. Morgan

Facts of the case New York voters sought declaratory judgment in a New York federal district court to prevent compliance with Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That section provided that no person who successfully completed the sixth grade in a school accredited by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which the language of instruction was other than English shall be denied the right to vote in any election because of his inability to read or write English. The plaintiffs argued that Section 4(e) prevented the enforcement of New York election laws which required an ability to read and write English as a condition of voting. A three-judge panel of the district court granted declaratory judgment and prevented enforcement of Section 4(e). It held that Congress exceeded its constitutionally designated powers in enacting Section 4(e) and usurped the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. Question Does Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 exceed the scope of Congress' powers to enact legislation because it infringes on powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment? Conclusion No. The Supreme Court held that Section 4(e) is a proper exercise of the powers granted to Congress. With Justice William J. Brennan writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that Congress exercised its powers consistent with those afforded it by Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court then concluded that the Supremacy Clause prevented the enforcement of the New York English literacy requirement. ---opinions--- Harlan's dissent - Lassiter had held that the ability to read English was not an irrational requirement for voting, therefore it was not a violation of the equal protection clause to distinguish those who could and could not. This could be challenged by assuming that 1- Lassiter was wrongly decided and 2- to reverse Lassiter, and 3- 14th amendment gives congress the right to overrule erroneous SCOTUS decisions. Brennan - 1 - The state's have no power to grant or withhold the franchise on conditions that are forbidden by the 14th amendment. 2- His next argument was to eschew reconsideration of Lassiter and prove that the literacy requirement did indeed violate the equal protection clause. 3 - He tried to shift it from discrimination in voting to discrimination in government services through the protection of Spanish speaking NY residents.

4- Gray v. Sanders (1963) (ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE)

Facts of the case Since the beginning of the 20th century, the State of Georgia used a county unit system for counting votes in primary elections. Under this system, the candidate who received the highest number of votes in a county would receive all of that county's unit votes. The overall winning candidate would then have to receive a majority of the county unit votes statewide. This system ended up giving rural counties a majority of the unit votes, even though rural counties made up only about a third of the population as of the 1960s. In 1962, James O'Hear Sanders, a voter in Georgia's most populous county, brought suit against several representatives of the Georgia State Democratic Executive Committee and the Secretary of State of Georgia. Sanders claimed that the county unit system violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Seventeenth Amendment. As a voter within one of the urban counties, Sanders claimed his vote had less of an influence on the nomination of candidates than that of a rural voter. A special three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia agreed with Sanders and held that the county unit system violated the Equal Protection Clause. However, the district court did not outlaw the county unit system entirely. The State appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Question Does the county unit voting system violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Conclusion Yes. Justice William O. Douglas, in an 8-1 majority opinion, vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case with directions. The Court held that the weighing of votes through the county unit system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by giving more voting power to residents of particularly small rural counties. Unlike the district court, the majority held that the county unit system was impermissible in its entirety. The Court reasoned that the longstanding concept of political equality requires elections to be governed by the rule of "one person, one vote." Justice John Marshall Harlan II dissented, arguing that the case should be sent back for trial to establish a fully developed record for the Court to review. Having Baker as precedent and it having also drawn on the equal protection clause also aided this movement. --- Opinions: Kenedy - One man, on e vote Stewart and Clark - Agreed with majority but wrote that this case had nothing to do with legislative districting like "baker" did

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Facts of the case The Governor and the Legislature of Arkansas openly resisted the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. They refused to obey court orders designed to implement school desegregation. Local officials delayed plans to do away with segregated public facilities. Question Were Arkansas officials bound by federal court orders mandating desegregation? Conclusion In a signed, unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Arkansas officials were bound by federal court orders that rested on the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The Court noted that its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Brown was the supreme law of the land and that it had a "binding effect" on the states. The Court reaffirmed its commitment to desegregation and reiterated that legislatures are not at liberty to annul judgments of the Court.

Lochner v. New York

Facts of the case The state of New York enacted a statute forbidding bakers to work more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours a day. Question Does the New York law violate the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion The Court invalidated the New York law. The majority (through Peckham) maintained that the statute interfered with the freedom of contract, and thus the Fourteenth Amendment's right to liberty afforded to employer and employee. The Court viewed the statute as a labor law; the state had no reasonable ground for interfering with liberty by determining the hours of labor.

5 - Wesberry v. Sanders (1963)

Facts: In Georgia, the governor was elected based on an electoral college system. This highly skewed the votes and gave rural areas disproportionate voting power, in comparison to cities like Atlanta, which had twice the population of Georgia's most populous rural district. Holding: The Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution requires that representatives of the State be chosen by the people and that votes be apportioned to the population. The Court interpreted the Constitution to require a "one person, one vote" standard. Even though the Court established the "one person, one vote" standard, this was circumvented through gerrymandering. --- Facts of the case James P. Wesberry, Jr. filed a suit against the Governor of Georgia, Carl E. Sanders, protesting the state's apportionment scheme. The Fifth Congressional District, of which Wesberry was a member, had a population two to three times larger than some of the other districts in the state. Wesberry claimed this system diluted his right to vote compared to other Georgia residents. Question Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote? Conclusion The Court held that Georgia's apportionment scheme grossly discriminated against voters in the Fifth Congressional District. Because a single congressman had to represent two to three times as many people as were represented by congressmen in other districts, the Georgia statute contracted the value of some votes and expanded the value of others. The Court recognized that "no right is more precious" than that of having a voice in elections and held that "[t]o say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected 'by the People. . .'" --opinions-- Black - Because the constitution states reps "be chosen" by the people, he construed this to mean that every person's vote in a congressional election should be equal, as per A1S2 of the constitution. Harlan - Unlike Black, he didn't think the Framers left such language to be discovered so much later, and that black had mangled the constituiton.

24th Amendment

Getting rid of poll tax.

Kramer v. United Free School District

Invalidated a NY law that limited voting in school elections to adults who own/lease property or who have children in the schools. Warrens opinion denies the states power to restrict voting except on grounds of age citizenship or residency. Legislation limiting voting to only a portion of those eligible can cause unfair representation. Stewart, Black, and Harland dissented staying that those who have such an interest in the election (people with kids in the school those who own it rent piper they) should presumably be the main people voting in the election

Selma (Reaction to reapportionment from the disenfranchised)

King chose Selma, in spite of LBJ's favor of Birmingham, to be the focal point for the voting rights act. African American's were disproportionately represented in terms of voter registration and Selma also had a notoriously racist sheriff that would prove positive media coverage for the movement. -lbj's concern was drafting a bill quickly to make it look like the administration wasn't incompetent, it was done on 03/05 and the King's march to montegomery commenced 03/07. When the famous "bridge scene" happened, it was perfect coverage for the voting rights movement.

Luther v. Green

Luther v. Borden (1849): Creation of governments is a political question, and federal courts may not review political questions.

Lassiter v. North Hampton County Board of elections

Recognized literacy tests CAN be used to discriminate, and the congressional record developed showed that literacy tests " have been instituted with the purpose of disenfranchising African Americans, and have been administered in a Discriinatory fashion for years.

7 - Reynolds v. Sims (Population based state house and senate, federal senate stuff doesn't apply)

Reynolds v. Sims (1964): Struck down state senate inequality and mandated a "one person, one vote" standard. Warren saw this as the actual application of what Baker sought to do. Reynolds tried to redistrict off non-population factors like natural boundaries and economic interests, but two sentences from the opinion rejected this "legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests" --- Facts of the case In 1961, M.O. Sims, David J. Vann (Vann v. Baggett), John McConnell (McConnell v. Baggett), and other voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, challenged the apportionment of the state legislature. The Alabama Constitution prescribed that each county was entitled to at least one representative and that there were to be as many senatorial districts as there were senators. Population variance ratios of as great as 41-to-1 existed in the Senate. 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 In an 8-to-1 decision, 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.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected a challenge by the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach).[2] South Carolina's argument was that the statute was too broad and that the fifteenth amendment's power to prevent racial discrimination didn't extend to voting (lol), thought the Voting Rights act was aimed at the South BECAUSE that's where discrimination was most prevalent In South Carolina, the state attorney general, Daniel R. McLeod filed a complaint directly with the Supreme Court attacking the constitutionality of the act and asking for an injunction against enforcement by the attorney general of the United States, Nicholas Katzenbach. McLeod challenged the Voting Rights Act as an unconstitutional encroachment on states' rights, as a violation of equality between the states, and as an illegal bill of attainder (legislative punishment enforced without due process of law.) [3] South Carolina was joined on its attack on the Voting Rights Act by other southern states. Meanwhile, twenty states that filed in support of the act's provisions and powers mainly consisted of northern and western states. The case took on an even wider significance than normal in a state challenge to a new federal law.[3] The decision represents a rare instance of the Supreme Court exercising its original jurisdiction, as the case was filed directly in the Supreme Court by the state of South Carolina, rather than being appealed from a lower court. The court intentionally heard the case prior to the 1966 elections. -- opinions-- Warren- cited McCulloch and stated "Congress could use 'any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition.'" The result in Lassiter only contributed to this Black- Believedthat state's asking permission of the federal government to adopt a new law stripped the state's of their dignity.

23rd Amendment

The 23rd amendment gives residents of Washington DC the right to vote for representatives in the Electoral College. Remember that the Electoral College chooses our next president, based on the voting within their state.

"Political Questions" Label

The public must be nourished by the court's complete detachment, in fact and appearance, from political entanglements and by abstention from injecting itself into the class of political forces in political settlements." Applied literally, this meant that the court could never decide a controversial case if by doing so one political group would be angry.

3 Questions of reapportionment: 1 - How equal must the population be to satisfy the requirement of equal protection? 2 - Could a state follow the example of the United States senate and have one house be represented on a non-population basis? 3 - From Lucas, would the court allow more leeway to a plan adopted by popular vote than one adopted by the affected politicians?

Warren's et al's response (Through Reynolds): 1 - Very equal indeed, as nearly of equal population as is practicable 2- Upper houses are held tot he same constitutional standard as lower houses because the federal analogy has no application to the states 3- The right and necessary remedy did not go tot he process of redistricting, it went tot he outcome of districting and thus there is no exception for a popular vote