Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

starroute

(12,977 posts)
22. "One man, one vote" was enforced by Supreme Court decision
Sun Sep 29, 2013, 04:19 PM
Sep 2013

Gerrymandering is a different situation on one level, because you could argue that it doesn't technically violate the 14th Amendment requirement for equal protection of the law. But if someone comes up with a plausible case for why it does, the issue could be resolved through the courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man,_one_vote#Warren_Court_decisions

In various reapportionment cases decided by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, notably Wesberry v. Sanders, Reynolds v. Sims, and Baker v. Carr, the court ruled that districts for the United States House of Representatives and for the legislative districts of both houses of state legislatures had to contain roughly equal populations. The U.S. Senate was not affected by these rulings, as its makeup was explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. The cases concerning malapportionment ended the pattern of area-based representation in the U.S. House and state legislatures.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that retreated from the Court's political question doctrine, deciding that redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide reapportionment cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that reapportionment of legislative districts is a "political question", and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

Voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, home to the state's largest city of Birmingham, had challenged the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature. The Alabama Constitution provided that there be at least one representative per county and as many senatorial districts as there were senators. Ratio variances as great as 14 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 14 times the number of voters in another).

Having already overturned its ruling that redistricting was a purely political question in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Court went further in order to correct what seemed to it to be egregious examples of malapportionment which were serious enough to undermine the premises underlying republican government. Before Reynolds, urban counties were often drastically underrepresented.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Yes we do shenmue Sep 2013 #1
Yeah, but good luck getting that to happen. Tidy Cat Sep 2013 #2
Right. Its inherently a state issue, elleng Sep 2013 #13
We need to end House districts. They aren't even in the Constitution. Recursion Sep 2013 #3
Well, how do we go about making that happen? MoonRiver Sep 2013 #5
And there's the problem. Districting is controlled entirely by state legislatures Recursion Sep 2013 #6
Ok, so that is what needs amending. MoonRiver Sep 2013 #12
As I said, good luck with that. Tidy Cat Sep 2013 #15
Then start a movement in each state treestar Sep 2013 #60
That is why I have been screaming for folks to get out and vote in state and local elections. kelliekat44 Sep 2013 #64
I'd be fine with just doing away with the House... Drunken Irishman Sep 2013 #36
Your understanding of our goverment is badly in error. GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #43
There is an interesting underlying point there though mythology Sep 2013 #48
See my post # 51. N/T GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #52
They won more seats. They didn't win more votes. Drunken Irishman Sep 2013 #50
We are not a parliamentary system. GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #51
And? Drunken Irishman Sep 2013 #58
We have made amendment, never a rewrite. GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #59
I never said it would happen. Doesn't mean it shouldn't, tho. Drunken Irishman Sep 2013 #70
The best solution would be proportionally appointed reps Blaukraut Sep 2013 #4
I like the "party slate" idea Recursion Sep 2013 #9
...but then people get upset about "the Party Bosses"... brooklynite Sep 2013 #17
And about 95% of the world's democracies seem fine with the idea (nt) Recursion Sep 2013 #49
Proportional is the way to go. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #26
100% needed but how? Freddie Sep 2013 #7
Districts are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution Recursion Sep 2013 #11
The apportionment of Representatives per State is, though. pinto Sep 2013 #30
OK, but how do we enforce it? Savannahmann Sep 2013 #8
There's a variety of ways jeff47 Sep 2013 #23
Representation by County PADemD Sep 2013 #37
First the Constitutional issue. Savannahmann Sep 2013 #40
Yes, yes yes. Cleita Sep 2013 #10
There already is one - it's called the 14th Amendment jberryhill Sep 2013 #14
Good idea. With computerization, gerrymandering effects are worse than ever. JEFF9K Sep 2013 #16
Somebody has to do something. MadrasT Sep 2013 #18
Lol... jberryhill Sep 2013 #28
Racking my brains to come up with something a constituent in Upper Darby MadrasT Sep 2013 #55
Yes, but you have no change of getting one. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2013 #19
This would need to pass in the very state legislatures that ... surrealAmerican Sep 2013 #20
I don't believe it's necessary. Blanks Sep 2013 #21
"One man, one vote" was enforced by Supreme Court decision starroute Sep 2013 #22
gerrymandering is a problem but not the only one dsc Sep 2013 #24
No. We need to shoot every single Republicans who *THINKS* gerrymandering is a wonderful idea. Old Navy Sep 2013 #25
Isn't gerrymandering a positive for minority representation? dkf Sep 2013 #27
If you like being held hostage by the minority, which Cleita Sep 2013 #29
What does the CBC say? dkf Sep 2013 #31
This message was self-deleted by its author MoonRiver Sep 2013 #32
I don't know. I suspect they are fine with it. Cleita Sep 2013 #34
No, yet I feel we need an independent oversight group to handle apportionment of Representatives. pinto Sep 2013 #33
Politicians will never write a law Mr.Bill Sep 2013 #35
It wouldn't work. There is no clear cut line on what is and what isn't gerrymandering. JVS Sep 2013 #38
No. It's a political process and "gerrymandering" is very subjective RB TexLa Sep 2013 #39
opening a constitutional convention would be very dangerous. grasswire Sep 2013 #41
Maybe - but shouldn't we gerrymander it back first? Whiskeytide Sep 2013 #42
Just a reminder, Democrats have gerrymandered too. GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #44
I don't think it is right for either party to do it. MoonRiver Sep 2013 #45
Agreed, but in your OP you blamed only the Republicans. N/T GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #46
That's the big issue right now. MoonRiver Sep 2013 #47
K&R cprise Sep 2013 #53
I don't know davidpdx Sep 2013 #54
We'd need 50 state battles as well. n/t Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #56
You Beat Them At Their Own Game...On The State & Local Level... KharmaTrain Sep 2013 #57
k&r...it's a blatant manipulation of voters will. spanone Sep 2013 #61
If we could get such an amendment ratified we wouldn't need such an amendment onenote Sep 2013 #62
I would love if we could do it. gopiscrap Sep 2013 #63
How about a constitutional amendment to end Republicans? kentauros Sep 2013 #65
the entire thing desperately needs an overhaul ecstatic Sep 2013 #66
I can't imagine how such an amendment could be worded, without becoming meaningless pablum struggle4progress Sep 2013 #67
Let's have one. lonestarnot Sep 2013 #68
Set up federal control over election to federal offices. The States can kiranon Sep 2013 #69
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Do we need a constitution...»Reply #22