Opinion ID: 778860
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Constitutional Principle of One Person, One Vote

Text: 21 The history of the Fourteenth Amendment's one person, one vote doctrine begins with Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), where the Supreme Court rejected the long-held notion that questions of legislative apportionment were political questions outside the purview of the judiciary. Baker paved the way for a series of successful one person, one vote challenges to state and local elective systems, including the elections of state legislators, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), county officials, Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968), members of a local school board, Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1969), and trustees of a community college, Hadley v. Junior Coll. Dist. of Metro. Kansas City, Mo., 397 U.S. 50, 90 S.Ct. 791, 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970). 22 The one person, one vote principle requires that each qualified voter must be given an equal opportunity to participate in th[e] election, and when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will ensure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials. Id. at 56. When a challenged elective system denies an equal voice to each resident, the scheme is reviewed under strict scrutiny, for the general presumption of constitutionality afforded state statutes and the traditional approval given state classifications if the Court can conceive of a `rational basis' for the distinctions made are not applicable. Kramer, 395 U.S. at 627-28. 5 23 While proclaiming the importance of the one person, one vote right, the Supreme Court has also recognized that this right must operate within certain geographic boundaries. Obviously, it does not violate the principle of one person, one vote when residents of Idaho are denied the right to vote for the governor of New Jersey. Nor does it violate one person, one vote when the residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's suburbs are denied the right to vote for the Mayor or City Council of Philadelphia, despite the fact that many decisions of the Philadelphia city government — such as those regarding taxes, transportation, parking, and cultural institutions — inescapably affect individuals living immediately outside [Philadelphia's] borders, particularly those who work within the city limits. Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 69, 99 S.Ct. 383, 58 L.Ed.2d 292 (1978). The Supreme Court has recognized, therefore, that a government unit may legitimately restrict the right to participate in its political processes to those who reside within its borders, despite the fact that a government unit's decisions may inevitably have an effect — sometimes a very large effect — on persons who reside outside the unit's geographic limits. Id. at 68-69.