Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0001_ZO.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-26 04:40:22
Document Index: 326598807

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 34', '§ 2']

Appellants are citizens and qualified voters of Fulton County, Georgia, and as such are entitled to vote in congressional elections in Georgia's Fifth Congressional District. That district, one of ten created by a 1931 Georgia statute, [n1] includes Fulton, DeKalb, and Rockdale Counties, and has a population, according to the 1960 census, of 823,680. The average population of the ten districts is 394,312, less than half that of the Fifth. One district, the Ninth, has only 272,154 people, less than one-third as many as the Fifth. Since there is only one Congressman for each district, this inequality of population means that the Fifth District's Congressman has to represent from two to three times as many people as do Congressmen from some of the other Georgia districts. [p3]
The case was heard by a three-judge District Court, which found unanimously, from facts not disputed, that: It is clear by any standard . . . that the population of the Fifth District is grossly out of balance with that of the other nine congressional districts of Georgia, and, in fact, so much so that the removal of DeKalb and Rockdale Counties from the District, leaving only Fulton with a population of 556,326, would leave it exceeding the average by slightly more than forty percent. [n2]
Notwithstanding these findings, a majority of the court dismissed the complaint, citing as their guide Mr. Justice Frankfurter's minority opinion in Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, an opinion stating that challenges to apportionment [p4] of congressional districts raised only "political" questions, which were not justiciable. Although the majority below said that the dismissal here was based on "want of equity," and not on nonjusticiability, they relied on no circumstances which were peculiar to the present case; instead, they adopted the language and reasoning of Mr Justice Frankfurter's Colegrove opinion in concluding that the appellants had presented a wholly "political" question. [n3] Judge Tuttle, disagreeing with the court's reliance on that opinion, dissented from the dismissal, though he would have denied an injunction at that time in order to give the Georgia Legislature ample opportunity to correct the "abuses" in the apportionment. He relied on Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, which, after full discussion of Colegrove and all the opinions in it, held that allegations of disparities of population in state legislative districts raise justiciable claims on which courts may grant relief. We noted probable jurisdiction. 374 U.S. 802. We agree with Judge Tuttle that, in debasing the weight of appellants' votes, the State has abridged the right to vote for members of Congress guaranteed them by the United States Constitution, that the District Court should have entered a declaratory judgment to that effect, and that it was therefore error to dismiss this suit. The question of what relief should be given we leave for further consideration and decision by the District Court in light of existing circumstances. [p5]
Baker v. Carr, supra, considered a challenge to a 1901 Tennessee statute providing for apportionment of State Representatives and Senators under the State's constitution, which called for apportionment among counties or districts "according to the number of qualified voters in each." The complaint there charged that the State's constitutional command to apportion on the basis of the number of qualified voters had not been followed in the 1901 statute, and that the districts were so discriminatorily disparate in number of qualified voters that the plaintiffs and persons similarly situated were, "by virtue of the debasement of their votes," denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed them by the Fourteenth Amendment. [n4] The cause there of the alleged "debasement" of votes for state legislators -- districts containing widely varying numbers of people -- was precisely that which was alleged to debase votes for Congressmen in Colegrove v. Green, supra, and in the present case. The Court in Baker pointed out that the opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Colegrove, upon the reasoning of which the majority below leaned heavily in dismissing "for want of equity," was approved by only three of the seven Justices sitting. [n5] After full consideration of Colegrove, the Court in Baker held (1) that the District Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter; (2) that the qualified Tennessee voters there had standing to sue; and [p6] (3) that the plaintiffs had stated a justiciable cause of action on which relief could be granted.
The reasons which led to these conclusions in Baker are equally persuasive here. Indeed, as one of the grounds there relied on to support our holding that state apportionment controversies are justiciable, we said: . . . Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U.S. 375, and Carroll v. Becker, 285 U.S. 380, concerned the choice of Representatives in the Federal Congress. Smiley, Koenig, and Carroll settled the issue in favor of justiciability of questions of congressional redistricting. The Court followed these precedents in Colegrove, although over the dissent of three of the seven Justices who participated in that decision. [n6]
This statement in Baker, which referred to our past decisions holding congressional apportionment cases to be justiciable, we believe was wholly correct, and we adhere to it. Mr. Justice Frankfurter's Colegrove opinion contended that Art. I, § 4, of the Constitution [n7] had given Congress "exclusive authority" to protect the right of citizens to vote for Congressmen, [n8] but we made it clear in Baker that nothing in the language of that article gives support to a construction that would immunize state congressional apportionment laws which debase a citizen's right to vote from the power of courts to protect the constitutional rights of individuals from legislative destruction, a power recognized at least since our decision in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, in 1803. Cf. Gibbons [p7] v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1. The right to vote is too important in our free society to be stripped of judicial protection by such an interpretation of Article I. This dismissal can no more be justified on the ground of "want of equity" than on the ground of "nonjusticiability." We therefore hold that the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint.
We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, § 2 that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" [n9] means that, as [p8] nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. [n10] This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. [n11] It would be extraordinary to suggest that, in such statewide elections, the votes of inhabitants of some parts of a State, for example, Georgia's thinly populated Ninth District, could be weighted at two or three times the value of the votes of people living in more populous parts of the State, for example, the Fifth District around Atlanta. Cf. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368. We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected "by the People," a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, § 2, reveals that those who framed the Constitution [p9] meant that, no matter what the mechanics of an election, whether statewide or by districts, it was population which was to be the basis of the Hose of Representatives.
The result was the Constitutional Convention of 1787, called for "the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. . . ." [n12] When the Convention [p10] met in May, this modest purpose was soon abandoned for the greater challenge of creating a new and closer form of government than was possible under the Confederation. Soon after the Convention assembled, Edmund Randolph of Virginia presented a plan not merely to amend the Articles of Confederation, but to create an entirely new National Government with a National Executive, National Judiciary, and a National Legislature of two Houses, one house to be elected by "the people," the second house to be elected by the first. [n13]
argued strongly for an election of the larger branch by the people. It was to be the grand depository of the democratic principle of the Govt. [n14]
If the power is not immediately derived from the people in proportion to their numbers, we may make a paper confederacy, but that will be all. [n15]
Repeatedly, delegates rose to make the same point: that it would be unfair, unjust, and contrary to common sense to give a small number of people as many Senators or Representatives as were allowed to much larger groups [n16] -- in short, as James Wilson of Pennsylvania [p11] put it, "equal numbers of people ought to have an equal no. of representatives . . . ," and representatives "of different districts ought clearly to hold the same proportion to each other as their respective constituents hold to each other." [n17]
Some delegates opposed election by the people. The sharpest objection arose out of the fear on the part of small States like Delaware that, if population were to be the only basis of representation, the populous States like Virginia would elect a large enough number of representatives to wield overwhelming power in the National Government. [n18] Arguing that the Convention had no authority to depart from the plan of the Articles of Confederation, which gave each State an equal vote in the National Congress, William Paterson of New Jersey said,
If the sovereignty of the States is to be maintained, the Representatives must be drawn immediately from the States, not from the people, and we have no power to vary the idea of equal sovereignty. [n19]
To this end, he proposed a single legislative chamber in which each State, as in the Confederation, was to have an equal vote. [n20] A number of delegates supported this plan. [n21]
The delegates who wanted every man's vote to count alike were sharp in their criticism of giving each State, [p12] regardless of population, the same voice in the National Legislature. Madison entreated the Convention "to renounce a principle which. was confessedly unjust," [n22] and Rufus King of Massachusetts
was prepared for every event rather than sit down under a Govt. founded in a vicious principle of representation and which must be as short-lived as it would be unjust. [n23]
The dispute came near ending the Convention without a Constitution. Both sides seemed for a time to be hopelessly obstinate. Some delegations threatened to withdraw from the Convention if they did not get their way. [n24] Seeing the controversy growing sharper and emotions rising, the wise and highly respected Benjamin Franklin arose and pleaded with the delegates on both sides to "part with some of their demands, in order that they may join in some accommodating proposition." [n25] At last those who supported representation of the people in both houses and those who supported it in neither were brought together, some expressing the fear that, if they did not reconcile their differences, "some foreign sword will probably do the work for us." [n26] The deadlock was finally broken when a majority of the States agreed to what has been called the Great Compromise, [n27] based on a proposal which had been repeatedly advanced by Roger [p13] Sherman and other delegates from Connecticut. [n28] It provided, on the one hand, that each State, including little Delaware and Rhode Island, was to have two Senators. As a further guarantee that these Senators would be considered state emissaries, they were to be elected by the state legislatures, Art. I, § 3, and it was specially provided in Article V that no State should ever be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate. The other side of the compromise was that, as provided in Art. I, § 2, members of the House of Representatives should be chosen "by the People of the several States," and should be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." While those who wanted both houses to represent the people had yielded on the Senate, they had not yielded on the House of Representatives. William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut had summed it up well: "in one branch, the people ought to be represented; in the other, the States." [n29]
The debates at the Convention make at least one fact abundantly clear: that, when the delegates agreed that the House should represent "people," they intended that, in allocating Congressmen, the number assigned to each State should be determined solely by the number of the State's inhabitants. [n30] The Constitution embodied Edmund Randolph's proposal for a periodic census to ensure "fair representation of the people," [n31] an idea endorsed by Mason as assuring that "numbers of inhabitants" [p14] should always be the measure of representation in the House of Representatives. [n32] The Convention also overwhelmingly agreed to a resolution offered by Randolph to base future apportionment squarely on numbers and to delete any reference to wealth. [n33] And the delegates defeated a motion made by Elbridge Gerry to limit the number of Representatives from newer Western States so that it would never exceed the number from the original States. [n34]
It would defeat the principle solemnly embodied in the Great Compromise -- equal representation in the House for equal numbers of people -- for us to hold that, within the States, legislatures may draw the lines of congressional districts in such a way as to give some voters a greater voice in choosing a Congressman than others. The House of Representatives, the Convention agreed, was to represent the people as individuals, and on a basis of complete equality for each voter. The delegates were quite aware of what Madison called the "vicious representation" in Great Britain [n35] whereby "rotten boroughs" with few inhabitants were represented in Parliament on or almost on a par with cities of greater population. Wilson urged that people must be represented as individuals, so that America would escape [p15] the evils of the English system, under which one man could send two members to Parliament to represent the borough of Old Sarum, while London's million people sent but four. [n36] The delegates referred to rotten borough apportionments in some of the state legislatures as the kind of objectionable governmental action that the Constitution should not tolerate in the election of congressional representatives. [n37]
Madison, in The Federalist, described the system of division of States into congressional districts, the method which he and others [n38] assumed States probably would adopt:
The city of Philadelphia is supposed to contain between fifty and sixty thousand souls. It will therefore form nearly two districts for the choice of Federal Representatives. [n39]
"[N]umbers," he said, not only are a suitable way to represent wealth, but, in any event, "are the only proper scale of representation." [n40] In the state conventions, speakers urging ratification of the Constitution emphasized the theme of equal representation in the House which had permeated the debates in Philadelphia. [n41] [p16] Charles Cotesworth Pinckney told the South Carolina Convention,
the House of Representatives will be elected immediately by the people, and represent them and their personal rights individually. [n42]
Speakers at the ratifying conventions emphasized that the House of Representatives was meant to be free of the malapportionment then existing in some of the state legislatures -- such as those of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and South Carolina -- and argued that the power given Congress in Art. I, § 4, [n43]as meant to be used to vindicate the people's right to equality of representation in the House. [n44] Congress' power, said John Steele at the North Carolina convention, was not to be used to allow Congress to create rotten boroughs; in answer to another delegate's suggestion that Congress might use its power to favor people living near the seacoast, Steele said that Congress "most probably" would "lay the state off into districts," and, if it made laws "inconsistent with the Constitution, independent judges will not uphold them, nor will the people obey them." [n45] [p17]
Soon after the Constitution was adopted, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, by then an Associate Justice of this Court, gave a series of lectures at Philadelphia in which, drawing on his experience as one of the most active members of the Constitutional Convention, he said: [A]ll elections ought to be equal. Elections are equal when a given number of citizens in one part of the state choose as many representatives as are chosen by the same number of citizens in any other part of the state. In this manner, the proportion of the representatives and of the constituents will remain invariably the same. [n46]
It is in the light of such history that we must construe Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution, which, carrying out the ideas of Madison and those of like views, provides that Representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States," and shall be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." It is not surprising that our Court has held that this Article gives persons qualified to vote a constitutional right to vote and to have their votes counted. United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383; Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651. Not only can this right to vote not be denied outright, it cannot, consistently with Article I, be destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, or diluted by stuffing of the ballot box, see United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385. No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges [p18] this right. In urging the people to adopt the Constitution, Madison said in No. 57 of The Federalist: Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. [n47]
1. Ga.Code, § 34-2301.
2. Wesberry v. Vandiver, 206 F.Supp. 276, 279-280.
3. We do not deem [Colegrove v. Green] . . . to be a precedent for dismissal based on the nonjusticiability of a political question involving the Congress as here, but we do deem it to be strong authority for dismissal for want of equity when the following factors here involved are considered on balance: a political question involving a coordinate branch of the federal government; a political question posing a delicate problem difficult of solution without depriving others of the right to vote by district, unless we are to redistrict for the state; relief may be forthcoming from a properly apportioned state legislature, and relief may be afforded by the Congress.
4. 369 U.S. at 188.
5. Mr. Justice Rutledge, in Colgerove, believed that the Court should exercise its equitable discretion to refuse relief because
6. 369 U.S. at 232. Cf. also Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1.
7. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. . . .
8. 328 U.S. at 554
10. We do not reach the arguments that the Georgia statute violates the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
11. As late as 1842, seven States still conducted congressional elections at large. See Paschal, "The House of Representatives: ‘Grand Depository of the Democratic Principle'?" 17 Law & Contemp.Prob. 276, 281 (1952).
12. 3 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (Farrand ed.1911) 14 (hereafter cited as "Farrand").
13. 1 id. at 20.
15. Id. at 472.
16. See, e.g., id. at 197-198 (Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania) id. at 467 (Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts); id. at 286, 465-466 (Alexander Hamilton of New York); id. at 489-490 (Rufus King of Massachusetts); id. at 322, 446-449, 486, 527-528 (James Madison of Virginia); id. at 180, 456 (Hugh Williamson of North Carolina); id. at 253-254, 406, 449-450, 482-484 (James Wilson of Pennsylvania).
17. Id. at 180.
18. Luther Martin, of Maryland, declared
19. Id. at 251.
20. 3 id. at 613.
21. E.g., 1 id. at 324 (Alexander Martin of North Carolina), id. at 437-438, 439-441, 444-445, 453-455 (Luther Martin of Maryland); id. at 490-492 (Gunning Bedford of Delaware).
22. Id. at 464.
23. Id. at 490.
24. Gunning Bedford of Delaware said: We have been told (with a dictatorial air) that this is the last moment for a fair trial in favor of a good Government. . . . The Large States dare not dissolve the confederation. If they do, the small ones will find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith who will take them by the hand and do them justice.
25. Id. at 488.
26. Id. at 532 (Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts). George Mason of Virginia urged an "accommodation" as "preferable to an appeal to the world by the different sides, as had been talked of by some Gentlemen." Id. at 533.
27. See id. at 551.
28. See id. at 193, 342-343 (Roger Sherman); id. at 461-462 (William Samuel Johnson).
29. Id. at 462. (Emphasis in original.)
30. While "free Persons" and those "bound to Service for a Term of Years" were counted in determining representation, Indians not taxed were not counted, and "three fifths of all other Persons" (slaves) were included in computing the States' populations. Art. I, § 2. Also, every State was to have "at Least one Representative." Ibid.
31. 1 Farrand at 580.
32. Id. at 579.
33. Id. at 606. Those who thought that one branch should represent wealth were told by Roger Sherman of Connecticut that the
34. 2 id. at 3. The rejected thinking of those who supported the proposal to limit western representation is suggested by the statement of Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania that "The Busy haunts of men not the remote wilderness was the proper School of political Talents." 1 id. at 583.
35. Id. at 464.
36. Id. at 457. "Rotten boroughs" have long since disappeared in Great Britain. Today, permanent parliamentary Boundary Commissions recommend periodic changes in the size of constituencies as population shifts. For the statutory standards under which these commissions operate, see House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts of 1949, 12 13 Geo. 6, c. 66, Second Schedule, and of 1958, 6 & 7 Eliz. 2, c. 26, Schedule.
37. 2 id. at 241.
38. See, e.g., 2 Works of Alexander Hamilton (Lodge ed.1904) 25 (statement to New York ratifying convention).
39. The Federalist, No. 57 (Cooke ed.1961), at 389.
40. Id. No. 54, at 368. There has been some question about the authorship of Numbers 54 and 57, see The Federalist (Lodge ed.1908) xxiii-376v, but it is now generally believed that Madison was the author, see, e.g., The Federalist (Cooke ed.1961) xxvii; The Federalist (Van Doren ed.1945) vi-vii; Brant, "Settling the Authorship of The Federalist," 67 Am.Hist.Rev. 71 (1961).
41. See, e.g., 2 The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (2d Elliot ed. 1836) 11 (Fisher Ames, in the Massachusetts Convention) (hereafter cited as "Elliot"); id. at 202 (Oliver Wolcott, Connecticut); 4 id. at 21 (William Richardson Davie, North Carolina); id. at 257 (Charles Pinckney, South Carolina).
42. Id. at 304
43. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. . . .
44. See 2 Elliot, at 49 (Francis Dana, in the Massachusetts Convention); id. at 50-51 (Rufus King, Massachusetts); 3 id. at 367 (James Madison, Virginia).
45. 4 id. at 71.
47. The Federalist, No. 57 (Cooke ed.1961), at 385.