Reynolds v. Sims

Reynolds v. Sims
Reynolds v. Sims
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November, 1963; Decided June 15, 1964
Full case name	Reynolds, Judge, et al. v. Sims, et al.
Citations	377 U.S. 533 ( more ) 84 S. Ct. 1362; 12 L. Ed. 2d 506; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 1002
Argument	Oral argument
Case history
Prior	Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Holding
	State senate districts must have roughly equal populations based on the principle of "one person, one vote".
Court membership
	Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas ; Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II ; William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart ; Byron White · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinions
Majority	Warren, joined by Black, Douglas, Brennan, White, Goldberg
Concurrence	Clark
Concurrence	Stewart
Dissent	Harlan
Laws applied
	U.S. Const. amend. XIV (Equal Protection Clause)
	This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
	Colegrove v. Green , 328 U.S. 549 (1946) (in part)

Last updated December 20, 2023

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population. Along with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of "one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies.

Prior to the case, numerous state legislative chambers had districts containing unequal populations; for example, in the Nevada Senate, the smallest district had 568 people, while the largest had approximately 127,000 people. Some states refused to engage in regular redistricting, while others enshrined county by county representation (like the U.S. constitution does with state by state representation) in their constitutions. The case of Reynolds v. Sims arose after voters in Birmingham, Alabama, challenged the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature; the Constitution of Alabama provided for one state senator per county regardless of population differences.

In a majority opinion joined by five other justices, Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to establish state legislative electoral districts roughly equal in population. Warren held that "legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II argued that the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to apply to voting rights. The decision had a major impact on state legislatures, as many states had to change their system of representation.^[1]

Historical background

Before the industrialization and urbanization of the United States, a State Senate was understood to represent rural counties, in most states as a counterbalance to towns and cities. Of the forty-eight states then in the Union, only seven^{[lower-alpha 1]} twice redistricted even one chamber of their legislature following both the 1930 and the 1940 Censuses.^[2]^[3] Illinois did not redistrict between 1910 and 1955,^[4] while Alabama and Tennessee had at the time of Reynolds not redistricted since 1901. In Connecticut, Vermont, Mississippi, and Delaware, apportionment was fixed by the states' constitutions, which, when written in the late eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, did not foresee the possibility of rural depopulation as was to occur during the first half of the century.^[2] In New Hampshire the state constitutions, since January 1776, had always called for the state senate to be apportioned based on taxes paid, rather than on population.

Having already overturned its ruling that redistricting was a purely political question in Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Court ruled to correct what it considered egregious examples of malapportionment; these were serious enough to undermine the premises underlying republican government. Before Reynolds, urban counties nationwide often had total representations similar to rural counties, and in Florida, there was a limit to three representatives even for the most populous counties.^[3]

The case

Voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, home to the state's largest city of Birmingham, challenged the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature. The Alabama Constitution provided that there be only one state senator per county. Ratio variances as great as 41 to 1 from one senatorial district to another existed in the Alabama Senate (i.e., the number of eligible voters voting for one senator was in one case 41 times the number of voters in another). The case was named for M. O. Sims, one of the voters who brought the suit, and B. A. Reynolds, a probate judge in Dallas County, one of the named defendants in the original suit.^[5] Reynolds was named (along with three other probate judges) as a symbolic representative of all probate judges in the state of Alabama.^[6]

Among the more extreme pre-Reynolds disparities^[7] claimed by Morris K. Udall:

In the Connecticut General Assembly, one House district had 191 people.
In the New Hampshire General Court, the Town of Ellsworth with a population of three people had a Representative in the lower house; this was the same representation given to Bedford, with a population of 3,636.^[8]^[9]
In the Utah State Legislature, the smallest district had 165 people, the largest 32,380.
In the Vermont General Assembly, the smallest district had 36 people, the largest 35,000.
In the Idaho Senate, the smallest district had 969 people; the largest, 93,400.
In the Nevada Senate, seventeen members represented as many as 127,000 or as few as 568 people.

Decision

The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise. [...] Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.

--Chief Justice Earl Warren on the right to vote as the foundation of democracy in Reynolds v. Sims (1964).^[10]

The eight justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote." In his majority decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." In addition, the majority simply denied the argument that states were permitted to base their apportionment structures upon the Constitution itself, which requires two senators from each state despite substantially unequal populations among the states.

Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Potter Stewart also issued a concurring opinion, in which he argued that while many of the schemes of representation before the court in the case were egregiously undemocratic and clearly violative of equal protection, it was not for the Court to provide any guideline beyond general reasonableness for apportionment of districts.

In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote that the majority had chosen to ignore the language, history, and original intent of the Equal Protection Clause, which did not extend to voting rights. The dissent strongly accused the Court of repeatedly amending the Constitution through its opinions, rather than waiting for the lawful amendment process: "the Court's action now bringing them (state legislative apportionments) within the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment amounts to nothing less than an exercise of the amending power by this Court." The Court had already extended "one person, one vote" to all U.S. congressional districts in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) a month before, but not to the Senate.

Aftermath

Since the ruling applied different representation rules to the states than was applicable to the federal government, Reynolds v. Sims set off a legislative firestorm across the country. Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois led a fight to pass a constitutional amendment allowing legislative districts based on land area, similar to the United States Senate.^[11] He warned that:

[T]he forces of our national life are not brought to bear on public questions solely in proportion to the weight of numbers. If they were, the 6 million citizens of the Chicago area would hold sway in the Illinois Legislature without consideration of the problems of their 4 million fellows who are scattered in 100 other counties. Under the Court's new decree, California could be dominated by Los Angeles and San Francisco; Michigan by Detroit.

Numerous states had to change their system of representation in the state legislature. For instance, South Carolina had elected one state senator from each county. It devised a reapportionment plan and passed an amendment providing for home rule to counties. However, allegations of State Senates being redundant arose, as all states affected retained their state senates, with state senators being elected from single-member districts, rather than abolishing the upper houses, as had been done in 1936 in Nebraska ^{[lower-alpha 2]} (and in the provinces of Canada), or switching to electing state senators by proportional representation from several large multi-member districts or from one statewide at-large district, as was done in Australia.^[12]

Reactions

In a 2015 Time Magazine survey of over 50 law professors, both Erwin Chemerinsky (Dean, UC Berkeley School of Law) and Richard Pildes (NYU School of Law) named Reynolds v. Sims the "best Supreme Court decision since 1960", with Chemerinsky noting that in his opinion, the decision made American government "far more democratic and representative."^[1]

Related Research Articles

Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that districts in the United States House of Representatives must be approximately equal in population. Along with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of "one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies.

Baker 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 holding in a later decision as follows: "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of a State Legislature in designing the geographical districts from which representatives are chosen either for the State Legislature or for the Federal House of Representatives.". The court had previously held in Gomillion v. Lightfoot that districting claims over racial discrimination could be brought under the Fifteenth Amendment.

Redistricting in the United States is the process of drawing electoral district boundaries. For the United States House of Representatives, and state legislatures, redistricting occurs after each decennial census.

The South Carolina General Assembly, also called the South Carolina Legislature, is the state legislature of the U.S. state of South Carolina. The legislature is bicameral and consists of the lower South Carolina House of Representatives and the upper South Carolina Senate. All together, the General Assembly consists of 170 members. The legislature convenes at the State House in Columbia.

"One man, one vote", or "one person, one vote", expresses the principle of equal representation in voting. This slogan is used by advocates of democracy and political equality, especially with regard to electoral reforms like universal suffrage and proportional representation.

The Alabama Legislature is the legislative branch of the government of the U.S. state of Alabama. It is a bicameral body composed of the House of Representatives and Senate. It is one of the few state legislatures in which members of both chambers serve four-year terms and in which all are elected in the same cycle. The most recent election was on November 6, 2018. The new legislature assumes office immediately following the certification of the election results by the Alabama Secretary of State which occurs within a few days following the election.

The Nevada Senate is the upper house of the Nevada Legislature, the state legislature of U.S. state of Nevada, the lower house being the Nevada Assembly. It currently (2012–2021) consists of 21 members from single-member districts. In the previous redistricting (2002–2011) there were 19 districts, two of which were multimember. Since 2012, there have been 21 districts, each formed by combining two neighboring state assembly districts. Each State Senator represented approximately 128,598 as of the 2010 United States Census. Article Four of the Constitution of Nevada sets that State Senators serve staggered four-year terms.

The Oklahoma Senate is the upper house of the two houses of the Legislature of Oklahoma, the other being the Oklahoma House of Representatives. The total number of senators is set at 48 by the Oklahoma Constitution.

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.

Texas has had at-large congressional seats at various times in its history. It was often the case when the state received new congressional seats as a result of reapportionment, that it would have a representative elected from an at-large seat, voted on by all voters in the state. This enabled the legislature, which was dominated by legislators from rural districts, to postpone re-districting that would reduce their power by apportioning districts to recognize the increased population and economic power of the developing major cities.

Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946), was a United States Supreme Court case. Writing for a 4–3 plurality, Justice Felix Frankfurter held that the federal judiciary had no power to interfere with malapportioned Congressional districts. The Court held that the Elections Clause in Article I, section IV of the U.S. Constitution left to the legislature of each state the authority to establish the time, place, and manner of holding elections for Congressional Representatives, and that only Congress could determine whether individual state legislatures had fulfilled their responsibility to secure fair representation for citizens.

Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court which was one of a series of cases decided in 1964 that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">175th New York State Legislature</span> New York state legislative session

The 175th New York State Legislature, consisting of the New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly, met from January 6 to June 23, 1965, during the seventh year of Nelson Rockefeller's governorship, in Albany.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">176th New York State Legislature</span> New York state legislative session

The 176th New York State Legislature, consisting of the New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly, met from January 5 to July 6, 1966, during the eighth year of Nelson Rockefeller's governorship, in Albany.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">177th New York State Legislature</span> New York state legislative session

The 177th New York State Legislature, consisting of the New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly, met from January 4, 1967, to May 25, 1968, during the ninth and tenth years of Nelson Rockefeller's governorship, in Albany.

The 2020 United States redistricting cycle is in progress following the completion of the 2020 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies are re-drawing state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives are also drawing new districts for that legislative body.

Redistricting in Wisconsin is the process by which boundaries are redrawn for municipal wards, Wisconsin State Assembly districts, Wisconsin State Senate districts, and Wisconsin's congressional districts. Redistricting typically occurs—as in other U.S. states—once every decade, usually in the year after the decennial United States census. According to the Wisconsin Constitution, redistricting in Wisconsin follows the regular legislative process, it must be passed by both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature and signed by the Governor of Wisconsin—unless the Legislature has sufficient votes to override a gubernatorial veto. Due to political gridlock, however, it has become common for Wisconsin redistricting to be conducted by courts. The 1982, 1992, and 2002 legislative maps were each created by panels of United States federal judges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1965 New Jersey Senate election</span>

The 1965 New Jersey State Senate elections were held on November 2.

Apportionment by country describes the practices used in various democratic countries around the world for partitioning seats in the parliament among districts or parties. See apportionment (politics) for the general principles and issues related to apportionment.

References

1 2 Sachs, Andrea (October 6, 2015). "The Best Supreme Court Decisions Since 1960". Time. Retrieved October 1, 2018. Among the decisions repeatedly praised by the law-school professors were those that championed civil and individual liberties, as well as those that made democracy more participatory. Decisions that were often mentioned included Loving v. Virginia (1967), which found restrictions on interracial marriage unconstitutional; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), which protected freedom of the press in the realm of political reporting and libel; Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), which established the one-person, one-vote concept in legislative apportionment; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 same-sex-marriage ruling.
1 2 Shull, Charles W. (1941). "Reapportionment: A Chronic Problem". National Municipal Review. 30 (2): 73–79. doi:10.1002/ncr.4110300204.
1 2 Harvey, Lashey G. (1952). "Reapportionments of State Legislatures: Legal Requirement". Law and Contemporary Problems. 17 (2): 364–376. doi:10.2307/1190238. JSTOR 1190238.
↑ Baker; Rural Versus Urban Political Power; p. 14
↑ Brown, Steven P. "Reynolds v. Sims". Encyclopedia of Alabama. Retrieved December 21, 2022.
↑ "B. A. REYNOLDS, etc., et al., Appellants, v. M. O. SIMS et al. David J. VANN and Robert S. Vance, Appellants, v. Agnes BAGGETT, Secretary of State of Alabama et al. John W. McCONNELL, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Agnes BAGGETT, Secretary of State of Alabama et al". LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University. Retrieved December 21, 2022.
↑ Udall, Morris K. (October 14, 1964). "Reapportionment--I "One Man, One Vote"... That's All She Wrote!". Congressman's Report. University of Arizona. Archived from the original on October 10, 2017. Retrieved January 3, 2018.
↑ "New Hampshire 1960-2010 Town and County populations". New Hampshire Office of Strategic Initiatives. Retrieved March 5, 2023.
↑ Manual for the General Court, 1961. Concord, N.H. : Dept. of State. January 1, 1961. pp. 233–241. Retrieved March 5, 2023.
↑ "Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), at 555 and 561-562". Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 15, 1964. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
↑ McBride, Alex (December 2006). "Landmark Cases: Reynolds v. Sims (1964)". The Supreme Court. WNET . Retrieved January 3, 2018.
↑ "CALIFORNIA: Do we need state senators?". The Press-Enterprise . December 17, 2011. Retrieved January 3, 2018.

Notes

↑ These being New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire (lower house only), Maine, South Dakota, Montana and Nevada (lower house only)
↑ Technically, Nebraska abolished the lower house of its legislature, granting its powers to the Nebraska Senate (which was renamed simply the "Nebraska Legislature"), but the end result was effectively the same.

External links

Text of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533(1964) is available from: Findlaw Justia Library of Congress
California Legislative District Maps (1911–Present)

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[:4-1] 1 2 Sachs, Andrea (October 6, 2015). "The Best Supreme Court Decisions Since 1960". Time. Retrieved October 1, 2018. Among the decisions repeatedly praised by the law-school professors were those that championed civil and individual liberties, as well as those that made democracy more participatory. Decisions that were often mentioned included Loving v. Virginia (1967), which found restrictions on interracial marriage unconstitutional; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), which protected freedom of the press in the realm of political reporting and libel; Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), which established the one-person, one-vote concept in legislative apportionment; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 same-sex-marriage ruling.

[Reapportionment-3] 1 2 Shull, Charles W. (1941). "Reapportionment: A Chronic Problem". National Municipal Review. 30 (2): 73–79. doi:10.1002/ncr.4110300204.

[Reapportionments-4] 1 2 Harvey, Lashey G. (1952). "Reapportionments of State Legislatures: Legal Requirement". Law and Contemporary Problems. 17 (2): 364–376. doi:10.2307/1190238. JSTOR 1190238.

[5] Baker; Rural Versus Urban Political Power; p. 14

[6] Brown, Steven P. "Reynolds v. Sims". Encyclopedia of Alabama. Retrieved December 21, 2022.

[7] "B. A. REYNOLDS, etc., et al., Appellants, v. M. O. SIMS et al. David J. VANN and Robert S. Vance, Appellants, v. Agnes BAGGETT, Secretary of State of Alabama et al. John W. McCONNELL, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Agnes BAGGETT, Secretary of State of Alabama et al". LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University. Retrieved December 21, 2022.

[8] Udall, Morris K. (October 14, 1964). "Reapportionment--I "One Man, One Vote"... That's All She Wrote!". Congressman's Report. University of Arizona. Archived from the original on October 10, 2017. Retrieved January 3, 2018.

[nhpops-9] "New Hampshire 1960-2010 Town and County populations". New Hampshire Office of Strategic Initiatives. Retrieved March 5, 2023.

[nhlegbook-10] Manual for the General Court, 1961. Concord, N.H. : Dept. of State. January 1, 1961. pp. 233–241. Retrieved March 5, 2023.

[11] "Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), at 555 and 561-562". Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 15, 1964. Retrieved January 5, 2021.

[12] McBride, Alex (December 2006). "Landmark Cases: Reynolds v. Sims (1964)". The Supreme Court. WNET . Retrieved January 3, 2018.

[14] "CALIFORNIA: Do we need state senators?". The Press-Enterprise . December 17, 2011. Retrieved January 3, 2018.

[2] These being New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire (lower house only), Maine, South Dakota, Montana and Nevada (lower house only)

[13] Technically, Nebraska abolished the lower house of its legislature, granting its powers to the Nebraska Senate (which was renamed simply the "Nebraska Legislature"), but the end result was effectively the same.

[1]

[lower-alpha 1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[lower-alpha 2]

[12]

v t e Case law related to redistricting in the United States
Equal population	Colegrove v. Green (1946) Baker v. Carr (1962) Gray v. Sanders (1963) Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) Reynolds v. Sims (1964) Davis v. Mann (1964) Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly of Colorado (1964) Fortson v. Toomb (1965) Burns v. Richardson (1966) Avery v. Midland County (1968) Kirkpatrick v. Preisler (1969) Wells v. Rockefeller (1969) Hadley v. Junior College District (1970) Mahan v. Howell (1973) Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District (1973) Gaffney v. Cummings (1973) White v. Weiser (1973) Chapman v. Meier (1975) East Carroll Parish Sch. Bd. v. Marshall (1976) Ball v. James (1981) Karcher v. Daggett (1983) Brown v. Thomson (1983) Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris (1989) Cox v. Larios (2004) Tennant v. Jefferson County (2012) Evenwel v. Abbott (2016) Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)
Partisan gerrymandering	Gaffney v. Cummings (1973) Davis v. Bandemer (1986) Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006) Gill v. Whitford (2018) Benisek v. Lamone (2018) Rucho v. Common Cause / Lamone v. Benisek (2019)
Racial gerrymandering	Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960) Wright v. Rockefeller (1964) Turner v. Fouche (1970) Connor v. Johnson (1971) Ely v. Klahr (1971) Whitcomb v. Chavis (1971) City of Richmond v. United States (1975) East Carroll Parish Sch. Bd. v. Marshall Beer v. United States (1976) United Jewish Organizations v. Carey (1977) Wise v. Lipscomb (1978) Mobile v. Bolden (1980) City of Rome v. United States (1980) Rogers v. Lodge (1982) Escambia County v. McMillan (1984) Mississippi Republican Executive Committee v. Brooks (1984) Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) Clark v. Roemer (1991) Chisom v. Roemer (1991) Houston Lawyers' Association v. Attorney General of Texas (1991) Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n (1992) Growe v. Emison (1993) Voinovich v. Quilter (1993) Shaw v. Reno (1993) Holder v. Hall (1994) Johnson v. De Grandy (1994) United States v. Hays (1995) Miller v. Johnson (1995) Shaw v. Hunt (1996) Bush v. Vera (1996) Lopez v. Monterey County (1996) Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (1997) Abrams v. Johnson (1997) Lopez v. Monterey County (1999) Hunt v. Cromartie (1999) Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (2000) Sinkfield v. Kelley (2000) Easley v. Cromartie (2001) Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003) League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006) Bartlett v. Strickland (2009) Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama (2015) Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections (2017) Cooper v. Harris (2017) North Carolina v. Covington (2017) Abbott v. Perez (2018) North Carolina v. Covington (2018) Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2022) Allen v. Milligan (2023) Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2023)
Other	Chappelle v. Greater Baton Rouge Airport Dist. (1977) Upham v. Seamon (1982) Quinn v. Millsap (1989) Utah v. Evans (2002) Branch v. Smith (2003) Lance v. Dennis (2006) Lance v. Coffman (2007) Perry v. Perez (2012) Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015) Shapiro v. McManus (2015) Wittman v. Personhuballah (2016) Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (2019) Moore v. Harper (2023)