Carroll v. Becker

Decision Date11 April 1932
Docket NumberNo. 805,805
Citation76 L.Ed. 807,285 U.S. 380,52 S.Ct. 402
PartiesCARROLL v. BECKER, Secretary of State of Missouri
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Hyman G. Stein, of St. Louis, Mo., and Edward F. Colladay, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Mr. W. Ray Weightman, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Jefferson City, Mo., for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

The state of Missouri, under the reapportionment of representatives in Congress (Act of June 18, 1929, c. 28, § 22, 46 Stat. 21, 26 (2 USCA § 2a)), is entitled to thirteen representatives in place of sixteen as theretofore. The petitioner brought this proceeding to obtain a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of State of Missouri to file a declaration of the petitioner's candidacy for the office of representative in Congress in one of the congressional districts alleged to have been created by a bill passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate of Missouri in April, 1931. An alternative writ was issued, and respondent, Secretary of State, alleged in his return that the bill in question had been vetoed by the Governor and hence had not become a valid law of the state. The Supreme Court of the state, in the view that article 1, § 4, of the Federal Constitution, provided for the enactment of laws, upheld the action of the Secretary of State and quashed the alternative writ. The court also decided that 'since the number of representatives for Missouri has been reduced the former districts no longer exist and representatives must be elected at large.' 45 S.W.(2d) 533, 535. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 285 U. S. 534, 52 S. Ct. 409, 76 L. Ed. —.

The questions are substantially the same as those which were presented in Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, 52 S. Ct. 397, 76 L. Ed. —, decided this day, and the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice CARDOZO took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Scholle v. Hare
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 6 Junio 1960
    ...v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 L.Ed. 795; Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U.S. 375, 52 S.Ct. 403, 76 L.Ed. 805; Carroll v. Becker, 285 U.S. 380, 52 S.Ct. 402, 76 L.Ed. 807. In actions at law for damages, as early as 1900, the United States Supreme Court has sustained the jurisdiction of the f......
  • Preisler v. Secretary of State of Missouri
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • 4 Marzo 1968
    ... ... at 981), quoting from Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 at 374-375, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 L.Ed. 795 (1932). Carroll v. Becker, Secretary of State, 285 U.S. 380, 52 S.Ct. 402, 76 L.Ed. 807, which compelled Missouri's 1932 congressional elections at large, was ... ...
  • De Vesa v. Dorsey
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 23 Diciembre 1993
    ...legislature is "a political body of persons. Appropriately, it could not mean merely the members of that body."), aff'd, 285 U.S. 380, 52 S.Ct. 402, 76 L.Ed. 807 (1932); Commonwealth v. Hall, 291 Pa. 341, 140 A. 626, 630 (1928) (observing that the legislature is "a body to declare public po......
  • Carey v. Klutznick
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 1 Octubre 1980
    ...(1932), which, with the two other cases of Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U.S. 375, 52 S.Ct. 403, 76 L.Ed. 805 (1932) and Carroll v. Becker, 285 U.S. 380, 52 S.Ct. 402, 76 L.Ed. 807 (1932), "settled the issue in favor of justiciability of questions of congressional redistricting." Baker v. Carr, 369 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Rucho v. Common Cause—a Critique
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 70-5, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...congressional districts was resolved in Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932), Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U.S. 375 (1932), and Carroll v. Becker, 285 U.S. 380 (1932)).40. U.S. Const. art. 1, § 4. 41. Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2491, 2505.42. Id. at 2504.43. Common Cause v. Rucho, 318 F. Supp. 3d 777, 821......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT