Reapportionment

Question 1

Colegrove v. Green (1946)

Answer 1

Colegrove argues that the Congressional districts in Ill were misapportioned on territory and pop.
Court says it is not the place of the judiciary to intervene in apportionment as that is a political question, why? Court could not devise a new system, only declare the current system invalid which may be even worse than it is now. Constitution has conferred upon Congress the exclusive authority to secure fair representation by the States to the House

Question 2

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Answer 2

A challenge to apportionment presents no non-justiciable “political question” Political rights do not necessitate political questions. Political questions concern relationship of judiciary to the Fed branches, not of the judiciary to the States

Question 3

Gray v. Sanders (1963)

Answer 3

Review of District Court ruling of a county unit-system in apportionment for Congressional districts is permissible for statewide election if the “disparity against any county is not in excess of that which exists against any state in the most recent electoral college application.” Congressional districting necessitates a “one person, one vote” standard. The county unit system unfairly weighs the individual votes counted and is unconstitutional as a matter of violating the EPC

Question 4

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

Answer 4

Ala. Supreme Court says legislature violates the State Const. in failing to reapportion, but that it would not interfere to ascribe how they should reapportion. The EPC guarantees equal participation for all voters in State election. EPC requires both Houses must be nearly as equal as practicable with honest and good faith effort by the State. They do not have to be mathematically equal, just approx. equal. States can consider political subdivisions to preserve against gerrymandering

Question 5

Lucas v. 44th general Assembly of the State of Co. (1964)

Answer 5

Co. amends its constitution to change apportionment in 1962, did so by popular vote. Scheme before has MMD with a max population variance of 8 to 1, the new scheme is purely SMD and has a max pop. variance of 3.6 to 1. Court says there is a violation here of EPC because alternatives existed which could’ve have narrowed the variance even further, just because this amendment was an improvement does not mean it still does not violate the EPC

Question 6

Evenwell v. Abbot (2016)

Answer 6

Evenwell sues arguing districting in Tex. on total pop. as opposed to voter eligible pop. violates EPC by devaluing vote. Majority says there is no violation of EPC here, historically it was intended for Congressional representation to be based on total inhabitants.  This is a battle of vote equality vs. representation equality, and the court does not definitely decide either way. This will likely blow up on them at some point in the future.

Question 7

Karcher v. Dagget (1983)

Answer 7

NJ has one less house seat after 1980 census, proposes reapportionment plan. This plan had an avg. deviation from the ideal of 0.13 and about .6% variation between them. There were other plans proposed with substantially less variation. Adopting any standard other than population equality is unconstitutional.  State has to prove: a legit state interest to justify variation, that the plan consistently reflects that objective, and there are no alternatives which vindicate this interest that are closer to equality.

Question 8

Tennant v. Jefferson County (2012)

Answer 8

Jefferson County sues Va. saying that under Karcher the new apportionment is unconstitutional because schemes existed with smaller possible variations. Per Curiam Opinion says the scheme is not unconstitutional avoiding contests and avoiding splits are neutral policies justifying the variance from equality. Question now becomes how permissible a state objective must be to be considered constitutional. State policy aims are balanced against variances with not clear guiding standard