Wood v. Broom
| Decision Date | 18 October 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 424,424 |
| Citation | 287 U.S. 1,77 L.Ed. 131,53 S.Ct. 1 |
| Parties | WOOD, Secretary of State of Mississippi, et al. v. BROOM |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Messrs. J. A. Lauderdale, William H. Watkins and Greek L. Rice, all of Jackson, Miss., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from page 2 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Hugh V. Wall, of Brookhaven, Miss., and Cleon K. Calvert, of Pineville, Ky., for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from page 3 intentionally omitted] Messrs. John R. Saunders, Atty. Gen., Edwin H. Gibson and Collins Denny, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., and Albert V. Bryan, of Alexandria, Va., amici curiae.
Under the reapportionment pursuant to the act of June 18, 1929 (chapter 28, 46 Stat. 21, 26, 27, § 22 (2 USCA § 2a)), Mississippi is entitled to seven Representatives in Congress, instead of eight as theretofore. The Legislature of Mississippi by an Act known as House Bill No. 197, Regular Session 1932, c. 136, divided the state into seven congressional districts. The complainant, alleging that he was a citizen of Mississippi, a qualified elector under its laws, and also qualified to be a candidate for election as Representative in Congress, brought this suit to have the redistricting act of 1932 declared invalid and the restrain the defendants, state officers, from taking proceedings for an election under its provisions. The alleged grounds of invalidity were that the act violated article 1, § 4, and the Fourteenth Amendment, of the Constitution of the United States, and section 3 of the Act of Congress of August 8, 1911 (chapter 5, 37 Stat. 13 (2 USCA § 3)). Defendants moved to dismiss the bill (1) for want of equity, (2) for lack of equitable jurisdiction to grant the relief asked, (3) because on the facts alleged the complainant was not entitled to have his name placed upon the election ballot as a candidate from the state at large, and (4) because the decree of the court would be inefficacious. The District Court, of three judges, granted an interlocutory injunction, and, after answer, which admitted the material facts alleged in the bill and set up the same grounds of defense as the motion to dismiss together with a denial of the unconstitutionality of the challenged act, the court on final hearing, on bill and answer, entered a final decree making the injunction permanent as prayed. Defendants appeal to this Court. U.S.C. tit. 28, § 380 (28 USCA § 380).
The District Court held that the new districts, created by the redistricting act, were not composed of compact and contiguous territory, having as nearly as practicable the same number of inhabitants, and hence failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 3 of the Act of August 8, 1911. Sections 3 and 4 of that act (2 USCA §§ 3, 4) are as follows:
The act of August 8, 1911, as its title states, was an act 'For the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States under the Thirteenth Census'; that is, the census of 1910. The first section of the act fixed the number of the House of Representatives and apportioned that number among the several states. Its second section related to the allotment of Representatives to the territories of Arizona and New Mexico. 2 USCA § 2. The third and fourth sections expressly applied to the election of Representatives to which the state was entitled 'under this apportionment'; that is, under the apportionment under the act of 1911 pursuant to the census of 1910. Substantially the same provisions are found in prior reapportionment acts, the requirements as to compactness, contiguity, and equality in population in the new districts in which Representatives were to be elected under the new apportionment being addressed in each case to the election of Representatives 'under this apportionment'; that is, the apportionment made by the particular act. Act of June 25, 1842, c. 47, § 2, 5 Stat. 491; Act of February 2, 1872, c. 11, § 2, 17 Stat. 28; Act of February 25, 1882, c. 20, § 3, 22 Stat. 5, 6; Act of February 7, 1891, c. 116, §§ 3, 4, 26 Stat. 735, 736; Act of January 16, 1901, c. 93, §§ 3, 4, 31 Stat. 733, 734.
The act of June 18, 1929, however, in providing for the reapportionment under the Fifteenth Census (none having been made under the Fourteenth Census), omitted the requirements as to the compactness, contiguity, and equality in population, of new districts to be created under that apportionment. It did not carry forward those requirements as previous apportionment acts had done. There was, it is true, no express repeal of sections 3 and 4 of the act of 1911 and, as the act of 1929 did not deal with the subject, it contained no provision inconsistent with the requirements of the act of 1911. Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 373, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 L.Ed. 795. No repeal was necessary. The requirements of sections 3 and 4 of the act of 1911 expired by their own limitation. They fell with the apportionment to which they expressly related. The inquiry is simply whether the act of 1929 carried forward the requirements which otherwise lapsed. The act of 1929 contains no provision to that effect. It was manifestly the intention of the Congress not to re-enact the provision as to compactness, contiguity, and equality in population with respect to the districts to be created pursuant to the reapportionment under the act of 1929.
This appears from the terms of the act, and its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butcher v. Rice
... ... Green, supra, and ... MacDougall v. Green, supra ... Somewhat ... earlier, the Supreme Court, in Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S ... 1, 53 S.Ct. 1, 3, 77 L.Ed. 131, had before it a case in which ... a citizen of Mississippi had sought in the United States ... ...
-
Ince v. Rockefeller
...importance. There is no federal constitutional right either to contiguity or compactness of voting districts, Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1, 53 S.Ct. 1, 77 L.Ed. 131 (1932), and in any event no part of any district separates the two sections of the 23rd Assembly The factual allegations of this ......
-
Scholle v. Hare
...1916, 99 Neb. 527, 156 N.W. 1067, 1069-1070; People ex rel. Van Bokkelen v. Canaday, 1875, 73 N.C. 198, 225.43 1932, 287 U.S. 1, 53 S.Ct. 1, 77 L.Ed. 131.44 1948, 335 U.S. 281, 284, 287, 69 S.Ct. 1, 4.45 Colegrove, having failed in the action to enjoin the November 1946 election, sought in ......
-
Preisler v. Secretary of State of Missouri
...States Code was enacted as a part of the Act of June 18, 1929 (46 Stat. 26). As we also noted in Preisler II, Wood v. Bloom, 287 U.S. 1, 53 S.Ct. 1, 77 L.Ed. 131 (1932), held that Congress had failed to reenact any legislation requiring the election of Representatives from districts when it......
-
THE STRANGE CAREER OF THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT: FEDERALISM AND CIVIL RIGHTS, 1954-1976.
...PERSON, ONE VOTE AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN POLITICS 178 (2008). (173.) Heilman, supra note 82, at 21. (174.) E.g., Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1 (1932), rev'g 1 F. Supp. 134 (S.D. Miss. 1932) (three-judge (175.) 328 U.S. 549, 556 (1946), aff'g 64 F. Supp. 632 (N.D. 111.) (per curiam) (......
-
To End Gerrymandering: The Canadian Model for Reforming the Congressional Redistricting Process in the United States
...say in the make-up of the state legislature. 183 The 173 Id. at 19–21. 174 Id. at 46. 175 CROCKER, supra note 15, at 7. 176 Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1, 4, 8 (1932) (holding that 1929 Permanent Reapportionment Act established no requirements “as to the compactness, contiguity and equality in ......
-
Rucho for Minimalists
...of contiguity, compactness, and equal population. Act of Aug. 8, 1911, ch. 5, § 3, 37 Stat. 14, 14, invalidated by Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1, 8 (1932) (holding statute was impliedly repealed by the Act of 1929).35. Voter qualifications for elections of federal legislators are based on voter......
-
THE SWEEP OF THE ELECTORAL POWER.
...Subsequent Decennial Censuses and to Provide for Apportionment of Representatives in Congress, 46 Stat. 21 (1929); see also Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1, 6 (1932) (noting that this law "did not carry forward those requirements as previous apportionment acts had (275.) See, e.g., Dow, supra not......