Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 11:16AM Read the opinion here.
Issue. Does a malapportioned state legislature (some districts have far more people than others) violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Background. Alabama's constitution called for legislative representation based on population with decennial reapportionment. Despite the Constitutional mandate, Alabama had not reapportioned its legislature since 1900 (over 60 years). In that time, population shifts (from the country to the cities) led to malapportioned districts as some districts had far more individuals than others.
Those in districts with far more people sued and claimed that the malapportioned districts violated the Equal Protection Clause as those in some districts had their votes diluted when compared to those in other districts. The Supreme Court agreed.
Court's Analysis. The Court found that Equal Protection basically called for representative schemes that are truly (or as close as feasible) to one man, one vote. There is no more basic and fundamental right in a representative republic than the exercise of the franchise. And, what is represented in such governments, people or land?
Since people/votes are the essence of representative government, Equal Protection requires that each individual's vote is as important, powerful and influential as everyone else. Dilution of one's vote runs counter to Equal Protection. (The Federal example is not on point since that was the product of compromise and necessary for the foundation of the Federal Government.) Simply, the Court holds:
[A] basic constitutional standard requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis. Simply stated, an individual's right to vote for state legislature is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with voters of citizens living in other parts of the [State].
The Court recognized that it would be nearly impossible for each district to have the exactly same number of people. Some divergence is acceptable as long as it is based on "legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy." But, such considerations cannot be solely based on economics, history, or group interests. States must remember that people vote, so population must be the controlling consideration when drawing districts.