It went further to state that Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Neither the 67-member plan or the Crawford-Webb Act were sufficient remedies to end the discrimination that unequal representation had created. The significance of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims is that the decisions established that legislatures must be apportioned according to the one-person, one-vote standard. Once you finish this lesson, you should be able to: Once you finish this lesson, you should be able to: Give the year that Reynolds v. In Connecticut, Vermont, Mississippi, and Delaware, apportionment was fixed by the states' constitutions, which, when written in the late eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, did not foresee the possibility of rural depopulation as was to occur during the first half of the century. Reynolds v. Sims is a famous legal case that reached the United States Supreme Court in 1964. Kenneth has a JD, practiced law for over 10 years, and has taught criminal justice courses as a full-time instructor. [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. What resulted from the supreme court decisions in Baker v. Carr. 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. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. Significance: Reynolds v. Sims is famous for, and has enshrined, the "one person, one vote" principle. The eight justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote." Justice Tom Clark wrote a concurring opinion which was joined by no other justice. The court held that Once the geographical boundaries of a district are set, all who participate in that election have an equal vote no matter their sex, race, occupation, or geographical unit. 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. However, allegations of State Senates being redundant arose, as all states affected retained their state senates, with state senators being elected from single-member districts, rather than abolishing the upper houses, as had been done in 1936 in Nebraska[b] (and in the provinces of Canada), or switching to electing state senators by proportional representation from several large multi-member districts or from one statewide at-large district, as was done in Australia. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. All Rights Reserved However, the court found that the issue was justiciable and that the 14th amendment rights of Alabama residents were being violated. 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. Before Reynolds, urban counties nationwide often had total representations similar to rural counties, and in Florida, there was a limit to three representatives even for the most populous counties. The court in an 8-1 decision struck down Alabamas apportionment scheme as unconstitutional. are hardly of any less significance for the present and the future. The decision for the case of Reynolds v. Sims has special significance because of its relation to the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment. The case of Reynolds v. Sims was ruled to be justiciable, which means that the legislative portion of the United States government had already voted on the issue regarding a similar which case, which renders the actual case to be moot, or not matter. Reynolds v. Sims was one that sought to challenge the apportionment schemes of Alabama and came to court seeking a remedy. The existing 1901 apportionment plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This meant the rule could be settled by the Supreme Court with some certainty. Reynolds and a group of other citizens from Jefferson County, Alabama, presented their case that the state constitution of Alabama was not being followed. A causal connection can be drawn from the injury to another source, 3. I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. 2. In addition, the majority simply denied the argument that states were permitted to base their apportionment structures upon the Constitution itself, which requires two senators from each state despite substantially unequal populations among the states. A likely (not speculative) injury was suffered by an individual, 2. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. What is Reynolds v. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. May 2, 2016. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, 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. "Reynolds v. Sims: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact." The case of Reynolds v. Sims was initially argued November 13, 1963, but a decision on this case was not reached until June 15, 1964. Spitzer, Elianna. A. REYNOLDS, etc., et al., Appellants, v. M. O. SIMS et al. Having already overturned its ruling that redistricting was a purely political question in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Court ruled to correct what it considered egregious examples of malapportionment; these were serious enough to undermine the premises underlying republican government. It should also be superior in practice as well. QUESTIONWhat was the significance of the famous case Reynolds v. All of these cases questioned the constitutionality of state redistricting legislation mandated by Baker v. Carr. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. May 2, 2016. U.S. Supreme Court Cases: Study Guide & Review, Malloy v. Hogan: Summary, Decision & Significance, Psychological Research & Experimental Design, All Teacher Certification Test Prep Courses, Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Reynolds v. Sims: Summary, Decision & Significance, Jacobellis v. Ohio: Case, Summary & Facts, McLaughlin v. Florida: Summary, Facts & Decision, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964), Katzenbach v. McClung: Summary, Decision & Significance, United States v. Seeger: Case, Summary & Decision, Griffin v. California: Summary & Decision, ILTS School Counselor (235): Test Practice and Study Guide, GED Social Studies: Civics & Government, US History, Economics, Geography & World, Introduction to Human Geography: Help and Review, Foundations of Education: Certificate Program, NY Regents Exam - Global History and Geography: Help and Review, NY Regents Exam - Global History and Geography: Tutoring Solution, DSST Foundations of Education: Study Guide & Test Prep, Praxis Core Academic Skills for Educators: Reading (5713) Prep, Praxis Core Academic Skills for Educators - Writing (5723): Study Guide & Practice, English Common Law System: Definition & History, Jeremy Bentham: Biography, Theory & Ethics, Schedule of Drugs: Classification & Examples, What are Zero Tolerance Laws & Policies? If the case of Alabama's legislative districts needing proper apportionment was considered a justiciable cause. These three requirements are as follows: 1. When the Court applied this rule to Alabama's then-current apportionment, it ruled that their unequal apportionment violated the voters' equal protection rights protection under the 14th Amendment. In this case, the context was with regard to State legislatures. "[4][5], In July 1962, the state legislature approved a proposed constitutional amendment providing 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 67-member state senate (with one senator from each county). All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. Did Alabama's apportionment scheme violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by mandating at least one representative per county and creating as many senatorial districts as there were senators, regardless of population variances? This is the issue the Supreme Court faced in Reynolds v. Sims (1964). The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.[1][2][3]. --Chief Justice Earl Warren on the right to vote as the foundation of democracy in Reynolds v. Sims (1964).[11]. Amendment by weighing some votes higher than another? Voters in several Alabama counties sought a declaration that the States legislature did not provide equal representation of all Alabama citizens. U.S. Supreme Court Cases: Study Guide & Review, Malloy v. Hogan: Summary, Decision & Significance, Psychological Research & Experimental Design, All Teacher Certification Test Prep Courses, Decision of One Person, One Vote Court Case, Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Reynolds v. Sims: Summary, Decision & Significance, Jacobellis v. Ohio: Case, Summary & Facts, McLaughlin v. Florida: Summary, Facts & Decision, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964), Katzenbach v. McClung: Summary, Decision & Significance, United States v. Seeger: Case, Summary & Decision, Griffin v. California: Summary & Decision, ILTS School Counselor (235): Test Practice and Study Guide, GED Social Studies: Civics & Government, US History, Economics, Geography & World, Introduction to Human Geography: Help and Review, Foundations of Education: Certificate Program, NY Regents Exam - Global History and Geography: Help and Review, NY Regents Exam - Global History and Geography: Tutoring Solution, DSST Foundations of Education: Study Guide & Test Prep, Praxis Core Academic Skills for Educators: Reading (5713) Prep, Praxis Core Academic Skills for Educators - Writing (5723): Study Guide & Practice, What is a Magnetic Compass? 'And still again, after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, it was deemed necessary to adopt . Despite claims of the importance of "equality," the language and history of the Fourteenth Amendment suggest that it should not prevent states from developing individual democratic processes. It is of the essence of a democratic society, Chief Justice Warren wrote. In another case, Wesberry v. Sanders, the Court applied the one person, one vote principle to federal districts for electing members of the House of Representatives. Post-Reynolds, a number of states had to change their apportionment plans to take population into account. [2] Of the forty-eight states then in the Union, only seven[a] twice redistricted even one chamber of their legislature following both the 1930 and the 1940 Censuses. The Supreme Court came about an 8-to-1 vote in favor of Reynolds, which Chief Justice Earl Warren stated in the majority opinion. Both the Crawford-Webb Act and the 67-member plan were in line with Alabama's state constitution, the attorneys argued in their brief. As mentioned earlier in this lesson, the one person, one vote clause is applicable to the Equal Protection Clause because it was ruled that voting is a protected right of the citizens of Alabama, and all other states. A. Reynolds, a probate judge in Dallas County, one of the named defendants in the original suit. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama unlawfully drafted a temporary reapportionment plan for the 1962 election, overstepping its authority.