Reynolds v. Sims (1964) - Revision history

Admin at 01:55, 21 February 2020

2020-02-21T01:55:12Z

Admin: Admin moved page Reynolds v. Sims to Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

2019-10-21T19:33:09Z

Admin moved page Reynolds v. Sims to Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

Admin at 21:03, 30 April 2019

2019-04-30T21:03:18Z

Morgannoel18 at 08:56, 28 October 2017

2017-10-28T08:56:11Z

Admin at 20:13, 28 September 2017

2017-09-28T20:13:23Z

Nicole: Created page with "In ''Baker v. Carr'' (1962), the U.S. Supreme Court overruled prior decisions and held that the apportionment of legislative districts was a justiciable question (i.e., one th..."

2017-02-02T20:04:07Z

Created page with "In ''Baker v. Carr'' (1962), the U.S. Supreme Court overruled prior decisions and held that the apportionment of legislative districts was a justiciable question (i.e., one th..."

New page

In ''Baker v. Carr'' (1962), the U.S. Supreme Court overruled prior decisions and held that the apportionment of legislative districts was a justiciable question (i.e., one that could be decided by courts). Following ''Baker v. Carr'', lawsuits were instituted in at least 30 states challenging existing legislative apportionment. The Supreme Court decided six of these cases together as ''Reynolds v. Sims'' in 1964.

''Reynolds v. Sims'' challenged Alabama’s apportionment of seats in the state legislature because it underrepresented urban populations. For example, Mobile County, with a population of over 300,000, had three seats in the lower house, while Bullock County, with a population of under 14,000, had two seats. Under ''Baker v. Carr'', this sort malapportionment was justiciable; the question was what constitutional standard to apply in deciding the issue. ''Baker v. Carr'' had left this question open, but at least suggested a flexible approach. In ''Reynolds v. Sims'', however, Chief Justice Earl Warren rejected the consideration of local, social, political, and economic interests, and insisted on a strict “one person, one vote” formula, thus requiring almost all the states to change their own constitutions to reflect this mathematical standard.

The decision in ''Reynolds'' engendered a strong and immediate political reaction. Thirty-two state legislatures passed resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to overturn ''Reynolds v. Sims'', provisions for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision were introduced in both the Senate and the House, and legislation was introduced to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases involving legislative apportionment. All of these efforts failed, however, and federal courts continue to play a crucial role in all aspects of legislative apportionment.

==== Ellis Katz ====

SEE ALSO: [[Baker v. Carr]]; [[Colegrove v. Green]]; [[Reapportionment]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 In ''[[Baker v. Carr]]'' (1962), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] overruled prior decisions and held that the apportionment of legislative districts was a justiciable question (i.e., one that could be decided by courts). Following ''Baker v. Carr'', lawsuits were instituted in at least 30 states challenging existing legislative apportionment. The Supreme Court decided six of these cases together as ''Reynolds v. Sims'' in 1964.
-''Reynolds v. Sims'' challenged Alabama’s apportionment of seats in the state legislature because it underrepresented urban populations. For example, Mobile County, with a population of over 300,000, had three seats in the lower house, while Bullock County, with a population of under 14,000, had two seats. Under ''Baker v. Carr'', this sort malapportionment was justiciable; the question was what constitutional standard to apply in deciding the issue. ''Baker v. Carr'' had left this question open, but at least suggested a flexible approach. In ''Reynolds v. Sims'', however, Chief Justice Earl Warren rejected the consideration of local, social, political, and economic interests, and insisted on a strict “one person, one vote” formula, thus requiring almost all the states to change their own constitutions to reflect this mathematical standard.
+''Reynolds v. Sims'' challenged Alabama’s apportionment of seats in the state legislature because it underrepresented urban populations. For example, Mobile County, with a population of over 300,000, had three seats in the lower house, while Bullock County, with a population of under 14,000, had two seats. Under ''Baker v. Carr'', this sort of malapportionment was justiciable; the question was what constitutional standard to apply in deciding the issue. ''Baker v. Carr'' had left this question open, but at least suggested a flexible approach. In ''Reynolds v. Sims'', however, Chief Justice Earl Warren rejected the consideration of local, social, political, and economic interests, and insisted on a strict “one person, one vote” formula, thus requiring almost all the states to change their own constitutions to reflect this mathematical standard.
 The decision in ''Reynolds'' engendered a strong and immediate political reaction. Thirty-two state legislatures passed resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to overturn ''Reynolds v. Sims'', provisions for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision were introduced in both the Senate and the House, and legislation was introduced to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases involving legislative apportionment. All of these efforts failed, however, and federal courts continue to play a crucial role in all aspects of legislative apportionment.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 30 April 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	In ''Baker v. Carr'' (1962), the U.S. Supreme Court overruled prior decisions and held that the apportionment of legislative districts was a justiciable question (i.e., one that could be decided by courts). Following ''Baker v. Carr'', lawsuits were instituted in at least 30 states challenging existing legislative apportionment. The Supreme Court decided six of these cases together as ''Reynolds v. Sims'' in 1964.	+	In ''[[Baker v. Carr]]'' (1962), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] overruled prior decisions and held that the apportionment of legislative districts was a justiciable question (i.e., one that could be decided by courts). Following ''Baker v. Carr'', lawsuits were instituted in at least 30 states challenging existing legislative apportionment. The Supreme Court decided six of these cases together as ''Reynolds v. Sims'' in 1964.

	''Reynolds v. Sims'' challenged Alabama’s apportionment of seats in the state legislature because it underrepresented urban populations. For example, Mobile County, with a population of over 300,000, had three seats in the lower house, while Bullock County, with a population of under 14,000, had two seats. Under ''Baker v. Carr'', this sort malapportionment was justiciable; the question was what constitutional standard to apply in deciding the issue. ''Baker v. Carr'' had left this question open, but at least suggested a flexible approach. In ''Reynolds v. Sims'', however, Chief Justice Earl Warren rejected the consideration of local, social, political, and economic interests, and insisted on a strict “one person, one vote” formula, thus requiring almost all the states to change their own constitutions to reflect this mathematical standard.		''Reynolds v. Sims'' challenged Alabama’s apportionment of seats in the state legislature because it underrepresented urban populations. For example, Mobile County, with a population of over 300,000, had three seats in the lower house, while Bullock County, with a population of under 14,000, had two seats. Under ''Baker v. Carr'', this sort malapportionment was justiciable; the question was what constitutional standard to apply in deciding the issue. ''Baker v. Carr'' had left this question open, but at least suggested a flexible approach. In ''Reynolds v. Sims'', however, Chief Justice Earl Warren rejected the consideration of local, social, political, and economic interests, and insisted on a strict “one person, one vote” formula, thus requiring almost all the states to change their own constitutions to reflect this mathematical standard.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:13, 28 September 2017
Line 8:		Line 8:

	SEE ALSO: [[Baker v. Carr]]; [[Colegrove v. Green]]; [[Reapportionment]]		SEE ALSO: [[Baker v. Carr]]; [[Colegrove v. Green]]; [[Reapportionment]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:33, 21 October 2019
(No difference)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==== Ellis Katz ====
 SEE ALSO: [[Baker v. Carr]]; [[Colegrove v. Green]]; [[Reapportionment]]
 [[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]