Document: 369 U.S. 429 82 S.Ct. 910 8 L.Ed.2d 1 August SCHOLLEv.James M. HARE, Secretary of State Michigan, et al. No. 22. Supreme Court the United States April 23, 1962 Theodore Sachs, for appellant. Paul L. Adams, Atty. Gen. Joseph R. Bilitzke, Sol. Gen., Samuel J. Torina, former Stanton S. Faville, Chief Asst. Leon Cohan, Deputy and G. Douglas Clapperton, appellee James Hare. Edmund E. Shepherd, Frank D. Beadle, others. Melvin Nord Harold Norris, appellant, as amici curiae. PER CURIAM. The judgment is vacated case remanded to Michigan further consideration in light Baker v. Carr, 186, 691, 7 663. 2 Mr. Justice CLARK STEWART, concurring. 3 If we were able read several opinions way our Brother HARLAN does, would find much persuade us that this should not be remanded. But state court are clear us. A careful reading leaves with fixed impression all but three members convinced that, whatever underlying merits appellant's Equal Protection claim, it was, words one justices, 'not enforcible courts.' 360 Mich. 1, 112, 104 N.W.2d 63. 121. In Carr held such a claim judicially cognizable. Accordingly, join Court's order remanding Michigan. 4 FRANKFURTER took no part or decision case. 5 present course reflects views on claim. It may well turn out assertion invidious discrimination borne by record. Today's simply belief first consider federal constitutional free from any doubts its justiciability. 6 HARLAN, dissenting. remands 'for 186 (82 663).' my opinion nothing decided said majority casts upon, still less controls, only issue actually adjudicated I think either appeal dismissed want substantial question probable jurisdiction noted set argument. sole dispositive was concisely put Edwards, speaking four eightman court: 9 'Does Fourteenth Amendment Constitution prohibit enacting provisions electoral districts house legislature (the Senate) which result inequality popular representation house?' Scholle State, at 85, 63, 107. 10 These concluded decisions construing Clause 'prohibits establishing senate geographic areas drawn generally along county lines voter favoring thinly populated opposed populous ones.' Mich., 91, N.W.2d, 110. original petition mandamus filed dismissed.1 judges did so mention questions pertaining 'jurisdiction' court, 'standing' 'justiciability' his 11 Appellants timely notice Court, docketing record submitted jurisdictional statement forth presented review.2 papers, motion dismiss affirm, taken prevailing leave room doubt precise single Question IV statement: 'Do 1952 amendments Art. V, § Constitution, implementing legislation thereto, offend including due-process equal protection clauses thereof?' That more precisely delineated circumstances: (1) legislative branch concerned Senate (not entire Legislature, Carr); (2) challenged apportionment desires Michigan's citizenry, expressed referendum (and not, product inaction);3 (3) prescribed conflict Carr). 12 Were there anything recent intimating ought have been differently than content, reasons given dissent (369 330, 771, 663), note failure question. both separate concurrence written dispel 'distressingly inaccurate what decides,' U.S., 265, S.Ct., 736, pains warn '(a) (federal district) possessed subject matter; (b) justiciable cause action stated upon appellants entitled appropriate relief; (c) * standing challenge Tennessee statutes.' 197—198, 699, 736. How extensive discussion these subjects can thought shed discrete turns—a indeed studiously avoided Baker—is difficult understand. 13 Moreover, remand cannot justified theory time suggests—albeit sub silentio—that an arbitrary capricious violate Clause. For assumed proposition nonetheless existing apportionment: 'In face history precedent, say classification herein 'wholly arbitrary,' hence repugnant supreme has construed date.' 106, 118. 14 With respect, thus forthright Court. left uncomfortable position where will choose between adhering decision—in view faithful reflection past cases—or treating oblique invitation hold prohibits constitutionally freezing seats Senate, effect maintaining numerical voting inequalities, even though people State. (Note 3, supra.) 15 matter equivocal posture. Both orderly solution particular case, wider ramifications bound follow wake demand come grips now basic tendered This done dismissing noting then deciding another. dismissal right course. On appeals equally divided below affirmed. Mich.Stat.Ann. 27.46 (1938), Comp.Laws 1948, 601.26. Although statute expressly appears follows general rule affirmative unless justices considering vote grant relief. Consequently division writ petition. Cf. re Hartley, 317 441, 27 48. appears, moreover fact five (a majority) concurred issue. concurring Black shows he also 'that may—unfettered juridically 14th amendment—determine policy shall 'a proper diffusion political initiative' heavily state.' 119—120, 125. appellant listed following 'Questions Presented': 'I. Does establishment permanent grossly unequal population? 'II. lacking discernible, rational, uniform, non-arbitrary non-discriminatory basis (save, only, enactment malapportionment therefore invalid under prior provisions)? 'III. suit duly brought otherwise competent jurisdiction, challenging amendment respecting and/or districting grounds asserted controversy power render relief? 'IV. Do thereof? 'V. so, entertain relief invalidate enactments?' third does assert 'justiciability.' However, reference appellees' affirm combined, entirely justifiably record, into question: Article Section amended election November 1952, prescribes consist 34 members, each whom elected geographically described area, change because fluctuations population, due process clause Constitution?' disputed provision 2, establishes senatorial adopted initiative Proposition throughout Pub.Acts 1953, p. 438.

Category: 1