377 U.S. 533 (1964)
The 1901 Alabama Constitution and implementing statutes fixed the structure of the state legislature at a 35-member Senate and a 106-member House of Representatives.1 Seats were allocated among the state's 67 counties according to detailed formulas that guaranteed each county at least one House seat and prevented any county from receiving more than one Senate seat.2
Those provisions, last implemented after the 1900 federal census, remained in force without substantial change through 1961.3 The state's population had grown from roughly 1.8 million to more than 3.2 million, with the great majority of the increase occurring in urban counties.4
On August 26, 1961, residents, taxpayers, and voters of Jefferson County filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against various state and party officials responsible for conducting elections.5 The plaintiffs alleged that the existing apportionment, based on the 1900 census, produced severe population disparities.6 They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including a court-ordered at-large election if the legislature failed to act.7
Three groups of voters from Jefferson, Mobile, and Etowah Counties later intervened as plaintiffs.8 After this Court decided Baker v. Carr, the three-judge District Court convened and set the case for hearing.9 In July 1962 the Alabama Legislature, meeting in special session, adopted two measures.10 One was a proposed constitutional amendment known as the 67-Senator Amendment that would give each county one senator and distribute additional House seats by population.11 The other was a statutory standby plan called the Crawford-Webb Act that made only modest changes to Senate districts while retaining the county-based House structure.12
Trial evidence consisted primarily of 1960 census figures showing Senate population-variance ratios as high as 41-to-1 and House ratios as high as 16-to-1 under all three plans.13 On July 21, 1962, the District Court held the existing apportionment and both legislative proposals invalid.14 It ordered into effect a temporary plan drawn from portions of the two new measures for use in the November 1962 elections and retained jurisdiction to permit the legislature an opportunity to enact a permanent plan.15 Notices of appeal to this Court from the District Court's decision were timely filed by defendants below and by two groups of intervenor-plaintiffs.16 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction on June 10, 1963.17
Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature be apportioned on a population basis?18
The Equal Protection Clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis.19 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.20
Yes. The Alabama apportionment scheme, based on the 1900 census and left unchanged through 1961 despite population growth from roughly 1.8 million to more than 3.2 million concentrated in urban counties, produced Senate population-variance ratios as high as 41-to-1 and House ratios as high as 16-to-1. Under the existing plan only 25.1 percent of the state's total population resided in districts represented by a majority of the Senate, and Jefferson County with over 600,000 people received only one senator.21 This substantial dilution of votes cast by residents of Jefferson, Mobile, and Etowah Counties impairs the right to vote on the basis of place of residence and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Harlan dissented on the ground that the Equal Protection Clause was never intended to inhibit the States in choosing any democratic method they pleased for the apportionment of their legislatures.24 The language of the Fourteenth Amendment taken as a whole confirms that state legislative apportionments are wholly free of constitutional limitations save those imposed by the Republican Form of Government Clause.25 The understanding of those who proposed and ratified the Amendment points to the same conclusion.26
The political practices of the States at the time the Amendment was adopted reinforce this view.27 The Court's decision represents a massive judicial intervention into the political affairs of the States.28
Whether the federal analogy justifies apportioning one house of a state legislature by giving equal representation to each county regardless of population?29
The so-called federal analogy is inapposite and irrelevant to state legislative districting schemes.30 The system of representation in the two Houses of the Federal Congress is one conceived out of compromise and concession indispensable to the establishment of our federal republic and arising from unique historical circumstances.31
No. The 67-Senator Amendment would give each of Alabama's 67 counties one senator regardless of population.32 This plan cannot be sustained by recourse to the federal analogy because Alabama counties are merely involuntary political units of the State created by statute to aid in the administration of state government.33 The original 13 States surrendered some of their sovereignty in agreeing to join together to form a more perfect Union.34
The Founding Fathers had no intention of establishing a pattern or model for the apportionment of seats in state legislatures when the system of representation in the Federal Congress was adopted.35
The federal analogy does not justify apportioning one house of a state legislature by giving equal representation to each county regardless of population.36
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Clark agreed with the Court that the Alabama legislative apportionment scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.37 He also agreed that the District Court's temporary reapportionment order was proper under the circumstances of this case.38 Justice Clark would not reach the question of the so-called federal analogy.39
In his view, if one house of the State Legislature meets the population standard, representation in the other house might include some departure from it so as to take into account, on a rational basis, other factors in order to afford some representation to the different elements of the State.40
Whether a state may justify deviations from population-based apportionment by reference to political subdivisions, history, or other non-population factors?41
No. The Alabama Legislature offered two proposed plans, neither of which provided for the apportionment of even one of the two houses on a population basis. The 67-Senator Amendment retained substantial deviations from population equality, and the Crawford-Webb Act also retained substantial deviations from population equality.44 These deviations could not be justified by reference to political subdivisions or history.45 Population is of necessity the starting point for consideration and the controlling criterion for judgment in legislative apportionment controversies.
A state may not justify deviations from population-based apportionment by reference to political subdivisions, history, or other non-population factors.46
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stewart agreed that the Equal Protection Clause requires that legislative districts be substantially equal in population.47 He would not foreclose the possibility that a State might justify minor deviations from mathematical equality on the basis of legitimate state interests.48 Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment of the District Court holding that the existing apportionment violated the Equal Protection Clause.49
He also agreed that it was proper for the District Court, in framing a remedy, to adhere as closely as practicable to the apportionments approved by the representatives of the people of Alabama.50
Whether the District Court properly exercised its authority by declaring existing and proposed apportionment plans invalid and ordering a temporary plan into effect while retaining jurisdiction for further legislative action?51
Legislative apportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination.52 The courts should not be required to fashion a state legislative apportionment plan.53 Judicial relief becomes appropriate only when a legislature fails to reapportion according to constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so.54
Yes. The District Court properly found the existing scheme and both proposed plans unconstitutional.55 It acted properly in declaring the existing scheme invalid and restrained the State from conducting elections under the invalid plan. Although the court should have stayed its hand and permitted the legislature to adopt a valid plan, it correctly ordered a temporary plan into effect for the 1962 elections and retained jurisdiction to give the legislature an opportunity to enact a permanent constitutional scheme.
The District Court properly exercised its authority by declaring the plans invalid and ordering a temporary plan into effect while retaining jurisdiction.56