Case: CARROLL v. BECKER, SECRETARY OF STATE
Abbreviation: Carroll v. Becker
Decision Date: 1932-04-11
Docket Number: No. 805
Citation: 285 U.S. 380
Volume: 285
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: CARROLL v. BECKER, SECRETARY OF STATE.
Judges: Mr. Justice Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Pages: 380–382

Head Matter:
CARROLL v. BECKER, SECRETARY OF STATE.
No. 805.
Argued March 24, 1932.
Decided April 11, 1932.
Messrs. Edward F. Collada-y and Hyman G. Stein for petitioner.
.Mr. Ray Weightman, Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, with whom Messrs. Stratton Shartel, Attorney General, and L. Cunningham were on the brief, for respondent.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Hughes
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of Missouri, under the reapportionment of representatives in Congress (Act of June 18, 1929, c. 28, 46 Stat. 21, 26) is entitled to thirteen representatives in place of sixteen as theretofore. The petitioner brought this proceeding to obtain a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of State of Missouri to file a declaration of the petitioner's candidacy for the office of representative in Congress in one of the congressional districts alleged to have been created by a bill passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate of Missouri in April 1931. An alternative writ was issued, and respondent, Secretary of State, alleged in his return that the bill in question had been vetoed by the Governor and hence had not become a valid law of the State. The Supreme Court of the State, in the view that Article I, section 4, of the Federal Constitution, provided for the enactment of laws, upheld the action of the Secretary of State and quashed the alternative writ. The court also decided that " since the number of representatives for Missouri has been reduced- the former districts no longer exist and representatives must be elected at large." 45 S. W. (2d) 533. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.
' The questions are substantially the same as those which were presented in Smiley v. Holm, decided this day, ante, p. 355, and the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.