Equal Protection and Voting, Reynolds v. Sims

[A18]

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)

The Court held that a state may not elect one of the two houses of a state legislature the way the United States Senate is elected: on the basis of political units, rather than population.

In a companion case, Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly, the Court held unconstitutional a Colorado apportionment that had recently been overwhelmingly approved by the state's voters in a referendum, including majorities in every political subdivision of the state.

Although the Court asserted that the "fundamental principle of representative government in this country is one of equal representation for equal numbers of people," this "was not the colonial system, it was not the system chosen for the national government by the Constitution, it was not the system exclusively or even predominately practiced by the states at the time of adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it [was] not predominantly practiced by the states" when the cases were decided.

[Emsworth]

The Supreme Court's decision in Reynolds v. Sims was utterly atrocious. The Constitution does not merely fail to support the court's interpretation; in fact, it directly refutes it.

The argument made by the majority was that the equal protection clause requires states to equally "protect" every citizen's right to vote. If the equal protection clause stood alone, then this argument might have some semblance of merit. But as it so happens, the equal protection clause does not stand alone: it is but one part of a more extensive constitutional amendment.

But in Reynolds, the Court utterly ignored Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides:

[W]hen the right to vote at any election for the choice of ... the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

When one part of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows states to deny the right to vote, how can another part prevent states from doing exactly the same thing? The various provisions are not disjoint and unrelated clauses, but rather constitute a single and unified text, and should be construed in pari materia. Whatever the equal protection clause might have meant if it stood alone, it is obvious that, in context, it cannot extend to the right to vote.

I could proceed to discuss the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and how the Supreme Court ignored it in Reynolds, but I think that the textual argument is so strong that any investigation into original meaning is unnecessary.

[The Duke]

This ruling was unsound.  One man one vote does not mean that my state Senate must be apprortioned on population any more than it requires the US Senate be based on population.

[Dave from Michigan]

the decision sounds right (I don't know much about the constitutional law) so under this ruling the michigan state senate couldn't be elected by county (1 senator per county).  Although personally I think the districts should be equal at the state level for both houses.


does this decision  effect U.S. house of representatives seats

[The Duke]

the decision sounds right (I don't know much about the constitutional law) so under this ruling the michigan state senate couldn't be elected by county (1 senator per county).  Although personally I think the districts should be equal at the state level for both houses.

In California we did just fine with Senators by county before Reynolds v. Sims.  Now, we have a legislature that only represents Los Angeles and San Francisco, and the rest of the state gets trampled on.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

the decision sounds right (I don't know much about the constitutional law) so under this ruling the michigan state senate couldn't be elected by county (1 senator per county).  Although personally I think the districts should be equal at the state level for both houses.

In California we did just fine with Senators by county before Reynolds v. Sims.  Now, we have a legislature that only represents Los Angeles and San Francisco, and the rest of the state gets trampled on.

Gee, isn't that too bad that the Senators now represent where the people are, instead of giving some worthless county with almost no people an entire Senator. There's already 900,000 people per Senator, your un-democratic ideas would make it worse. I believe in democracy. You do not. You are an extremist.

[Dave from Michigan]

well true it would give larger populations areas more say.  Of course here in Michigan we elect our state senate by equal district and the republicans hold it, of course michigan is less democratic and only has Detroit as a major democratic area.

[A18]

This thread is not for debating policy. It is for debating constitutionality.

[The Duke]

the decision sounds right (I don't know much about the constitutional law) so under this ruling the michigan state senate couldn't be elected by county (1 senator per county).  Although personally I think the districts should be equal at the state level for both houses.

In California we did just fine with Senators by county before Reynolds v. Sims.  Now, we have a legislature that only represents Los Angeles and San Francisco, and the rest of the state gets trampled on.

Gee, isn't that too bad that the Senators now represent where the people are, instead of giving some worthless county with almost no people an entire Senator. There's already 900,000 people per Senator, your un-democratic ideas would make it worse. I believe in democracy. You do not. You are an extremist.

As A18 has pointed out, this thread is about constitutionality.  Its interesting though that you imply the American constitution is an un-democratic document.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

the decision sounds right (I don't know much about the constitutional law) so under this ruling the michigan state senate couldn't be elected by county (1 senator per county).  Although personally I think the districts should be equal at the state level for both houses.

In California we did just fine with Senators by county before Reynolds v. Sims.  Now, we have a legislature that only represents Los Angeles and San Francisco, and the rest of the state gets trampled on.

Gee, isn't that too bad that the Senators now represent where the people are, instead of giving some worthless county with almost no people an entire Senator. There's already 900,000 people per Senator, your un-democratic ideas would make it worse. I believe in democracy. You do not. You are an extremist.

As A18 has pointed out, this thread is about constitutionality.  Its interesting though that you imply the American constitution is an un-democratic document.

You were defending the system California used. That is very different from the argument over the constitutionality of this ruling. Of course, that's too complicated for a hack like you to understand.

[The Duke]

the decision sounds right (I don't know much about the constitutional law) so under this ruling the michigan state senate couldn't be elected by county (1 senator per county).  Although personally I think the districts should be equal at the state level for both houses.

In California we did just fine with Senators by county before Reynolds v. Sims.  Now, we have a legislature that only represents Los Angeles and San Francisco, and the rest of the state gets trampled on.

Gee, isn't that too bad that the Senators now represent where the people are, instead of giving some worthless county with almost no people an entire Senator. There's already 900,000 people per Senator, your un-democratic ideas would make it worse. I believe in democracy. You do not. You are an extremist.

As A18 has pointed out, this thread is about constitutionality.  Its interesting though that you imply the American constitution is an un-democratic document.

You were defending the system California used. That is very different from the argument over the constitutionality of this ruling. Of course, that's too complicated for a hack like you to understand.

Am I getting under your skin by any chance?

I believe the old California system is good policy AND Constitutionally valid.  Or is that too complicated for you to understand?

[A18]

Preserving local self-government does not so much curtail democracy, as it shifts it to the local level.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What I keep waiting for is for someone to take Reynolds v. Sims and the case law that developed from it to its ultimate conclusion, a lawsuit to force states that use the popular vote to select Electors to do so via single-member districts.