 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SYLLABUS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISTRICT APPORTIONMENT COURT CONSTITUTION ELECTION REAPPORTIONMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE ALABAMA REPRESENTATION PLANS APPELLEES BASIS HOUSES CONGRESS COMPLAINANTS REQUIRING VOTES APPORTIONMENT SCHEME PROPER EQUAL-POPULATION PRINCIPLE INJUNCTION ACCORDING HOLDING DISCRIMINATION SENATE DISTRICT EFFECTUATION DEBASEMENT INVALID CLAIMING |
U.S. Supreme Court
REYNOLDS v. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
377 U.S. 533
REYNOLDS, JUDGE, ET AL. v. SIMS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT
OF ALABAMA. No. 23.
Argued November 13, 1963.
Decided June 15, 1964. *
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 27, Vann et al. v. Baggett, Secretary of State of Alabama, et al.,
and No. 41, McConnell et al. v. Baggett, Secretary of State of Alabama, et al., also on appeal
from the same court.
Charging that malapportionment of the Alabama Legislature deprived them and others similarly
situated of rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the
Alabama Constitution, voters in several Alabama counties brought suit against various officials
having state election duties. Complaints sought a declaration that the existing state legislative
apportionment provisions were unconstitutional; an injunction against future elections pending
reapportionment in accordance with the State Constitution; or, absent such reapportionment, a
mandatory injunction requiring holding the 1962 election for legislators at large over the entire
State. The complaint alleged serious discrimination against voters in counties whose populations
had grown proportionately far more than others since the 1900 census which, despite Alabama's
constitutional requirements for legislative representation based on population and for decennial
reapportionment, formed the basis for the existing legislative apportionment. Pursuant to the
1901 constitution the legislature consisted of 106 representatives and 35 senators for the State's
67 counties and senatorial districts; each county was entitled to at least one representative; each
senate district could have only one member; and no county could be divided between two senate
districts. A three-judge Federal District Court declined ordering the May 1962 primary election
to be held at large, stating that it should not act before the legislature had further opportunity
take corrective measures before the general election. Finding after a hearing that neither of two
apportionment plans which the legislature thereafter adopted, to become effective in 1966, would
cure the gross inequality and invidious discrimination of the existing representation, which all
parties generally conceded violated the Equal Protection Clause, and that the complainants' votes
were unconstitutionally debased under all of the three plans at issue, the District Court ordered
temporary reapportionment for the 1962 general [377 U.S. 533, 534] election by combining
features of the two plans adopted by the legislature, and enjoined officials from holding future
elections under any of the invalid plans. The officials appealed, claiming that the District Court
erred in holding unconstitutional the existing and proposed reapportionment plans and that a
federal court lacks power affirmatively to reapportion a legislature; two groups of complainants
also appealed, one claiming error in the District Court's failure to reapportion the Senate
according to population, the other claiming error in its failure to reapportion both houses on a
population basis. Held:
1. The right of suffrage is denied by debasement or dilution of a citizen's vote in a state
federal election. Pp. 554-555.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
APPORTIONMENT ALABAMA LEGISLATURE COURT DISTRICT COURT LEGISLATION HOUSE SEATS EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE REAPPORTIONMENT FOOTNOTE PLAN REPRESENTATION VOTE OPINION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT UNITED STATES POPULATION BASIS APPORTIONMENT SCHEME PROVISIONS GOVERNMENT POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS CRAWFORD-WEBB ACT EFFECTIVENESS CROSS-APPELLANTS TEMPORARY REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN SENATORIAL DISTRICTS DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATORS |
U.S. Supreme Court
REYNOLDS v. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
377 U.S. 533
REYNOLDS, JUDGE, ET AL. v. SIMS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT
OF ALABAMA. No. 23.
Argued November 13, 1963.
Decided June 15, 1964. *
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 27, Vann et al. v. Baggett, Secretary of State of Alabama, et al.,
and No. 41, McConnell et al. v. Baggett, Secretary of State of Alabama, et al., also on appeal
from the same court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Involved in these cases are an appeal and two cross-appeals from a decision of the Federal
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama holding invalid, under [377 U.S. 533, 537] the
Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution, the existing and two legislatively proposed
plans for the apportionment of seats in the two houses of the Alabama Legislature, and ordering
into effect a temporary reapportionment plan comprised of parts of the proposed but judicially
disapproved measures. 1
I.
On August 26, 1961, the original plaintiffs (appellees in No. 23), residents, taxpayers and voters
of Jefferson County, Alabama, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama, in their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated Alabama
voters, challenging the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature. Defendants below (appellants
in No. 23), sued in their representative capacities, were various state and political party
charged with the performance of certain duties in connection with state elections. 2 The
complaint alleged a deprivation of rights under the Alabama Constitution and under the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and asserted that the District Court had
jurisdiction under provisions of the Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C. 1983. 1988, as well as under 28
U.S.C. 1343 (3).
The complaint stated that the Alabama Legislature was composed of a Senate of 35 members and
a House of Representatives of 106 members. It set out relevant portions of the 1901 Alabama
Constitution, which prescribe the number of members of the two bodies of the [377 U.S. 533, 538]
State Legislature and the method of apportioning the seats among the State's 67 counties, and
provide as follows:
Art. IV, Sec. 50. "The legislature shall consist of not more than thirty-five senators, and
not more than one hundred and five members of the house of representatives, to be
apportioned among the several districts and counties, as prescribed in this Constitution;
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
DISSENTING
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CONSTITUTION FOOTNOTE APPORTIONMENT DISTRICT COURT LEGISLATURES AMENDMENT ELECTIONS UNITED STATES REPRESENTATION SEATS CONST ART ALABAMA HOUSE APPEALS PROVISIONS GOVERNMENT EQUAL PROTECTION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE DISSENTING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ELECTIVE FRANCHISE MALE CITIZENS RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE COMPLAINT REAPPORTIONMENT |
U.S. Supreme Court
REYNOLDS v. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
377 U.S. 533
REYNOLDS, JUDGE, ET AL. v. SIMS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT
OF ALABAMA. No. 23.
Argued November 13, 1963.
Decided June 15, 1964. *
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 27, Vann et al. v. Baggett, Secretary of State of Alabama, et al.,
and No. 41, McConnell et al. v. Baggett, Secretary of State of Alabama, et al., also on appeal
from the same court.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting. *
In these cases the Court holds that seats in the legislatures of six States 1 are apportioned in
that violate the Federal Constitution. Under the Court's ruling it is bound to follow that the
legislatures in all but a few of the other 44 States will meet the same fate. 2 These decisions,
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 , involving congressional districting by the States, and Gray v.
Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 , relating to elections for statewide office, have the effect of placing basic
aspects of state political systems under the pervasive overlordship of the federal judiciary. Once
again, 3 I must register my protest. [377 U.S. 533, 590]
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.
Today's holding is that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires every
State to structure its legislature so that all the members of each house represent substantially the
same number of people; other factors may be given play only to the extent that they do not
significantly encroach on this basic "population" principle. Whatever may be thought of this
holding as a piece of political ideology - and even on that score the political history and
of this country from its earliest beginnings leave wide room for debate (see the dissenting
opinion of Frankfurter, J., in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 266 , 301-323) - I think it
demonstrable that the Fourteenth Amendment does not impose this political tenet on the States or
authorize this Court to do so.
The Court's constitutional discussion, found in its opinion in the Alabama cases (Nos. 23, 27, 41,
ante, p. 533) and more particularly at pages 561-568 thereof, is remarkable (as, indeed, is that
found in the separate opinions of my Brothers STEWART and CLARK, ante, pp. 588, 587) for
its failure to address itself at all to the Fourteenth Amendment as a whole or to the legislative
history of the Amendment pertinent to the matter at hand. Stripped of aphorisms, the Court's
argument boils down to the assertion that appellees' right to vote has been invidiously "debased"
or "diluted" by systems of apportionment which entitle them to vote for fewer legislators than
other voters, an assertion which is tied to the Equal Protection Clause only by the constitutionally
frail tautology that "equal" means "equal."
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
