Reynolds v. Sims Vann v. Baggett Connell v. Baggett
| Citation | 12 L.Ed.2d 506,84 S.Ct. 1362,377 U.S. 533 |
| Decision Date | 15 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | 27,Nos. 23,41,s. 23 |
| Parties | 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 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
W. McLean Pitts, Selma, Ala., for appellants in No. 23 and appellees in Nos. 27 and 41.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen. of Alabama, for appellee Richmond M. Flowers.
Charles Morgan, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for appellees in No. 23.
David J. Vann, Birmingham, Ala., for appellants in No. 27.
John W. McConnell, Jr., Mobile, Ala., for appellants in No. 41.
Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen. for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of 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
the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution, the existing and two legislative 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
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 officials 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
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; provided that in addition to the above number of representatives, each new county hereafter created shall be entitled to one representative.'
Art. IX, Sec. 197. 'The whole number of senators shall be not less than one-fourth or more than one-third of the whole number of representatives.'
Art. IX, Sec. 199. 'It shall be the duty of the legislature at its first session after the taking of the decennial census of the United States in the year nineteen hundred and ten, and after each subsequent decennial census, to fix by law the number of representatives and apportion them among the several counties of the state, according to the number of inhabitants in them, respectively; provided, that
each county shall be entitled to at least one representative.'
Art. XVIII, Sec. 284. '* * * Representation in the legislature shall be based upon population, and such basis of representation shall not be changed by constitutional amendments.'
The maximum size of the Alabama House was increased from 105 to 106 with the creation of a new county in 1903, pursuant to the constitutional provision which states that, in addition to the prescribed 105 House seats, each county thereafter created shall be entitled to one representative. Article IX, §§ 202 and 203, of the Alabama Constitution established precisely the boundaries of the State's senatorial and representative districts until the enactment of a new reapportionment plan by the legislature. These 1901 constitutional provisions, specifically describing the composition of the senatorial
districts and detailing the number of House seats allocated to each county, were periodically enacted as statutory measures by the Alabama Legislature, as modified only by the creation of an additional county in 1903, and provided the plan of legislative apportionment existing at the time this litigation was commenced.3
Plaintiffs below alleged that the last apportionment of the Alabama Legislature was based on the 1900 federal census, despite the requirement of the State Constitution that the legislature be reapportioned decennially. They asserted that, since the population growth in the State from 1900 to 1960 had been uneven, Jefferson and other counties were now victims of serious discrimination with respect to the allocation of legislative representation. As a result of the failure of the legislature to reapportion itself, plaintiffs asserted, they were denied 'equal suffrage in free and equal elections * * * and the equal protection of the laws' in violation of the Alabama Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The complaint asserted that plaintiffs had no other adequate remedy, and that they had exhausted all forms of relief other than that available through the federal courts. They alleged that the Alabama Legislature had established a pattern of prolonged inaction from 1911 to the present which 'clearly demonstrates that no reapportionment * * * shall be effected'; that representation at any future constitutional convention would be established by the legislature, making it unlikely that the membership of any such convention would be fairly representative; and that, while the Alabama Supreme Court had found that the legislature had not complied with the State Constitution in failing to reapportion according
to population decennially,4 that court had nevertheless indicated that it would not interfere with matters of legislative reapportionment.5
Plaintiffs requested that a three-judge District Court be convened.6 With respect to relief, they sought a declaration that the existing constitutional and statutory provisions, establishing the present apportionment of seats in the Alabama Legislature, were unconstitutional under the Alabama and Federal Constitutions, and an injunction against the holding of future elections for legislators until the legislature reapportioned itself in accordance with the State Constitution. They further requested the issuance of a mandatory injunction, effective until such time as the legislature properly reapportioned, requiring the conducting of the 1962 election for legislators at large over the entire State, and any other relief which 'may seem just, equitable and proper.'
A three-judge District Court was convened, and three groups of voters, taxpayers and residents of Jefferson, Mobile, and Etowah Counties were permitted to inter-
vene in the action as intervenor-plaintiffs. Two of the groups are cross-appellants in Nos. 27 and 41. With minor exceptions, all of the intervenors adopted the allegations of and sought the same relief as the original plaintiffs.
On March 29, 1962, just three days after this Court had decided Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to conduct at large the May 1962 Democratic primary election and the November 1962 general election for members of the Alabama Legislature. The District Court set the motion for hearing in an order stating its tentative views that an injunction was not required before the May 1962 primary election to protect plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and that the Court should take no action which was not 'absolutely essential' for the protection of the asserted constitutional rights before the Alabama Legislature...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moody v. Flowers
...contrary, militating against such an openhanded approach is the reasoning of Mr. Chief Justice Warren in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 575, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1388, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964): "Political subdivisions of States— counties, cities, or whatever—never were and never have been considere......
-
Reclaim Idaho v. Denney
...("[The Idaho] Constitution is republican in form, and is in conformity with the Constitution of the United States."); Reynolds v. Sims , 377 U.S. 533, 566, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) (Acknowledging the "democratic ideals of equality and majority rule.").19 In Luker , this Court ma......
-
Reid v. City of San Diego
...basic political rights, and any alleged restriction that impinges on it demands strict scrutiny. ( Reynolds v. Sims (1964) 377 U.S. 533, 561-562, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 ( Reynolds ).) However, there are exceptions.In Salyer , supra , 410 U.S. 719, 93 S.Ct. 1224, the United States Sup......
-
People v. Douglas
...a government by the people and for the people, the critical nature of the right to vote is manifest. ( Reynolds v. Sims (1964) 377 U.S. 533, 555, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1378, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 523 ["The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, ......
-
Split Fifth Circuit panel rules that Mississippi's lifetime felon disenfranchisement violates Eighth Amendment
...expressive of the dignity of American citizenship — that each person is an equal participant in charting our nation’s course. Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 533; Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000) (“[O]ne source of [the right to vote’s] fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each......
-
Mapped out of local democracy.
...the domain of state interest,'" but it loses that insulation when state power is deployed to infringe on a federally protected right* 377 U.S. 533, 566 (1964) (quoting Gomillion, 364 U.S. at 347) (ordering state reapportionment after holding that existing and proposed plans for apportionmen......
-
Restoring the Proper Role of the Courts in Election Law: Toward a Reinvigoration of the Political Question Doctrine
...is to decide whether a challenged law 74. Likely not, as long as the one-person-one-vote standard remains good law. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964). 75. See William T. McCauley, Florida Absentee Voter Fraud: Fashioning an Appropriate Judicial Remedy,54 U. MIAMI L. REV. 625, 6......
-
Examining the Lautenberg Amendment in the civilian and military contexts: congressional overreaching, statutory vagueness, ex post facto violations, and implementational flaws.
...to travel interstate); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485 (1965) (finding fundamental the right to privacy); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 565 (1964) (finding fundamental the right to vote); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (finding fundamental the right to (174.) Ada......
-
Election law violations.
...of their choice of representatives in Congress."). (20.) See DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 3, at 22; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (21.) See DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 3, at 22-23; see also United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973), aff'd on oth......
-
Chapter 160, SJR 13 – Voting: apportionment
...of the United States Constitution since it was articulated by Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) 377 U.S. 533, which was decided at the height of the Civil Rights movement; and WHEREAS, The Supreme Court of the United States, in Reynolds Sims, held tha......
-
§ 4. Annexation Or Merger With a City
...Notes:History: Const. 1963, Art. IV, § 4, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 Constitutionality: The United States Supreme Court held in Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533; 84 S Ct 1362; 12 L Ed 2d 506 (1964) that provisions establishing weighted land area-population formulae violate the Equal Protection Clause of ......
-
§ 2. Senators, Number, Term
...Notes:History: Const. 1963, Art. IV, § 2, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 Constitutionality: The United States Supreme Court held in Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533; 84 S Ct 1362; 12 L Ed 2d 506 (1964) that provisions establishing weighted land area-population formulae violate the Equal Protection Clause of ......
-
§ 6. Commission On Legislative Apportionment
...Notes:History: Const. 1963, Art. IV, § 6, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 Constitutionality: The United States Supreme Court held in Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533; 84 S Ct 1362; 12 L Ed 2d 506 (1964) that provisions establishing weighted land area-population formulae violate the Equal Protection Clause of ......