They alleged that the legislature had not reapportioned house and senate seats since 1901, despite a large increase in Alabama's population. The Crawford-Webb Act provided for a 106-member house of representatives (with each of the state's 67 counties having one representative by default and the remaining seats being allocated on the basis of population) and a 35-member state senate (with districts drawn to adhere to existing county lines). Reynolds v. Sims (1964) Case Summary. Learn about the Supreme Court case, Reynolds v. Sims. Reynolds v. Sims 1964. This is called the political question doctrine, and is invoked if the issue is such that a hearing by the courts will not settle the issue due to its purely political nature. copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. Dilution of a persons vote infringes on his or her right of suffrage. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. Apply today! Operations: Meghann Olshefski Mandy Morris Kelly Rindfleisch I feel like its a lifeline. What is Reynolds v. Chief Justice Warren acknowledged that reapportionment plans are complex and it may be difficult for a state to truly create equal weight amongst voters. The second plan was called the Crawford-Webb Act. He argued that the decision enforced political ideology that was not clearly described anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings, These being New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire (, Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 377, "The Best Supreme Court Decisions Since 1960", "Reapportionments of State Legislatures: Legal Requirement", "B. In July 1962, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama acknowledged the changes in Alabamas population and noted that the state legislature could legally reapportion seats based on population, as was required under Alabamas state constitution. Reynolds v. Sims (1964) | The Rose Institute of State and Local Government The 1962 Alabama general election was conducted on the basis of the court-ordered plan, which was immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Reynolds v. Sims. The district courts judgement was affirmed. We are told that the matter of apportioning representation in a state legislature is a complex and many-faceted one. Simply stated, an individual's right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living in other parts of the State. Argued November 13, 1963. The districts adhered to existing county lines. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) - Justia Law Reynolds v. Sims was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1964. Amendment by weighing some votes higher than another? After the Supreme Court decided in Baker v. Carr (1962) that federal courts have jurisdiction in hearing states legislative apportionment cases. The ones that constitutional challenges. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the court. The constitution also provided for reapportionment to take place following each decennial census. Before the industrialization and urbanization of the United States, a State Senate was understood to represent rural counties, as a counterbalance to towns and cities. Voters from Jefferson County, Alabama challenged the apportionment structure of their State House and Senate, which required each county to have at least one representative, regardless of size. By the 1960s, the 1901 plan had become "invidiously discriminatory," the attorneys alleged in their brief. In Reynolds v. Sims (1964) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states must create legislative districts that each have a substantially equal number of voters to comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Any one State does not have such issues. A. REYNOLDS, etc., et al., Appellants, v. M. O. SIMS et al. The constitution required that no county be divided between two senatorial districts and that no district comprise two or more counties not contiguous to one another. Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community, Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee. She has been writing instructional content for an educational consultant based out of the greater Pittsburgh area since January 2020. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population. A likely (not speculative) injury was suffered by an individual, 2. Reynolds v. Sims: Summary, Decision & Significance The Court's decision was among the first to hold that the free exercise of religion is not absolute. Reynolds v. Sims was one that sought to challenge the apportionment schemes of Alabama and came to court seeking a remedy. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment mandates that individual states work to provide equal protection, which means that governing occurs without bias and that lone individual differences are unimportant when considering citizens. [4][5], On July 21, 1962, the district court found that Alabama's existing apportionment system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Amendment XIV, United States Constitution. Reynolds v. Sims | law case | Britannica In the landmark case of Reynolds v. Sims, which concerned representation in state legislatures, the outcome was based on the Fourteenth Amendment requirement that, "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers." Because of this principle, proper proportioning of representatives should exist in all legislative districts, to make sure that votes are about equal with the population of residents. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. Reynolds v. Sims is a case decided on June 15, 1964, by the United States Supreme Court holding that state legislative districts should be made up of equal populations. Sims, for whom the case is named, was one of the resident taxpaying voters of Jefferson County, Alabama, who filed suit in federal court in 1961 challenging the apportionment of the Alabama legislature. Since under neither the existing apportionment provisions nor either of the proposed plans was either of the houses of the Alabama Legislature apportioned on a population basis, the District Court correctly held that all three of these schemes were constitutionally invalid. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill. [2], Justice John Harlan II, in a dissenting opinion, argued that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to voting rights. The case was brought by a group of Alabama voters who alleged that the apportionment of Alabama's state legislature violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution. Whatever may be thought of this holding as a piece of political ideology -- and even on that score, the political history and practices of this country from its earliest beginnings leave wide room for debate -- I think it demonstrable that the Fourteenth Amendment does not impose this political tenet on the States or authorize this Court to do so. The district court drafted a temporary re-apportionment plan for the 1962 election. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. May 2, 2016. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/6, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_reynolds.html, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/ReynoldsvSims.html, Spring 2016: Mosopefoluwa Ojo,Destiny Williams,Everette Hemphill,Trenton Jackson, [Reynolds v. Sims 377 U.S. 533 (1964)] was a U.S Supreme Court that decided that Alabamas legislative apportionment was unconstitutional because it violated the 14. State legislatures had been reluctant to redistrict[2] because there existed general upper-class fear that if redistricting to meet population changes were carried out, voters in large, expanding or expanded urban areas would vote for confiscatory wealth redistribution[3] that would severely inhibit the power of business interests who controlled state and city governments[4] early in the century. Furthermore, the existing apportionment, and also, to a lesser extent, the apportionment under the Crawford-Webb Act, presented little more than crazy quilts, completely lacking in rationality, and could be found invalid on that basis alone. The plaintiffs in the original suit alleged that state legislative districts had not been redrawn since the 1900 federal census, when the majority of the state's residents lived in rural areas. As we know that federal law is superior to that of the states. What was the significance of Reynolds v. US? - Answers These plans were to take effect in time for the 1966 elections. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. v. Abbott, Governor of Texas. At that time the state legislature consisted of a senate with 35 members and a house of representatives with 106 members. Reynolds is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.[1]. [5] In New Hampshire the state constitutions, since January 1776, had always called for the state senate to be apportioned based on taxes paid, rather than on population. Explain the significance of "one person, one vote" in determining U.S. policy; Discuss how voter participation affects politics in the United States; . In his majority decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. If the case of Alabama's legislative districts needing proper apportionment was considered a justiciable cause. In this case, the context was with regard to State legislatures. This system failed to take population size into account, leading to huge discrepancies between district . [1], The Supreme Court decided 8-1 to affirm the decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. However, states should strive to create districts that offer representation equal to their population. Equal Protection as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments require broadly that each person be treated equally in their voting power, but what equality means relies on a series of Supreme Court cases. Ratio variances as great as 41 to 1 from one senatorial district to another existed in the Alabama Senate (i.e., the number of eligible voters voting for one senator was in one case 41 times the number of voters in another). Unfortunately, in June 2013 the Supreme Court repealed several important aspects of the . Reynolds v. Sims Significance, "legislators Represent People, Not Trees", The Census, Further Readings Appellant R. A. Reynolds Appellee M. O. Sims Appellant's Claim That representation in both houses of state legislatures must be based on population. The court in an 8-1 decision struck down Alabamas apportionment scheme as unconstitutional.The court declared in Gary v. Sanders that the aim of one person, one vote should be tried to achieved. Can a state use a reapportionment plan that ignores significant shifts in population? In this case, the context was with regard to State legislatures. - Definition, Reintegrative Shaming: Definition & Theory in Criminology, Victimology: Contemporary Trends & Issues, Law Enforcement & Crime Victims: Training & Treatment, Practical Application: Measuring the Extent of Victimization, Personal Crimes: Types, Motivations & Effects, Explanations for Personal Crimes: Victim Precipitation & Situated Transactions, Impacts of Personal Crimes on Direct & Indirect Victims, Working Scholars Bringing Tuition-Free College to the Community, The plaintiff must have suffered an ''injury in fact.''.