It would not be necessary to decide whether appellants' allegations of impairment of their votes by the 1901 apportionment will ultimately entitle them to any relief in order to hold that they have standing to seek it. It also decreed one person, one vote as part of the United States' constitutional heritage and opened the door to challenging state voting procedures and malapportionment on constitutional grounds. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed their complaint on December 21, 1959 Baker, 179 F. In apportioning the Senators among the different counties, the fraction that may be lost by any county or counties, in the apportionment of members to the House of Representatives shall be made up to such county or counties in the Senate as near as may be practicable. The way boundaries of voting districts are drawn and the number of voters contained within each district largely determines how fairly people are represented by that process. Thus, when the same dispute produced a case properly brought, in which the right asserted was one of protection under federal treaties and laws from conflicting state law, and the relief sought was the voiding of a conviction under that state law, the Court did void the conviction.
In the interest of stability, a State may write into its fundamental law a permanent distribution of legislators among its various election districts, thus forever ignoring shifts in population. The injury which appellants assert is that this classification disfavors the voters in the counties in which they reside, placing them in a position of constitutionally unjustifiable inequality vis-a-vis voters in irrationally favored counties. Appellants do not suggest a means by which a court, on the basis of the federal census figures, can determine the number of qualified voters in the various Tennessee counties. To my mind, this would be nothing less than blackjacking the Assembly into reapportioning the State. Carter wrote that the Georgia state government, like many others, proposed a number of stalling ploys, fake reapportionment plans, and other ways to avoid the shift in political power that the one-person, one-vote ruling had been designed to cause.
In the instance of nonjusticiability, consideration of the cause is not wholly and immediately foreclosed; rather, the Court's inquiry necessarily proceeds to the point of deciding whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined, and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially molded. Baker and other Shelby County, Tennessee residents filed a lawsuit claiming that they were underrepresented in their legislative district. Justice Brennan wrote the majority opinion of the court, essentially stating that dilution of votes was, in fact, denying the residents of Tennessee equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. The nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers. Of course, as we have seen, any reliance on that clause would be futile. The District Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the federal constitutional claim asserted in the complaint.
Sprague, , with Hawke v. Several years earlier the Supreme Court heard Colegrove v. It did not adopt the principle of representation based on population, but merely disfranchised certain among the rotten borough and enfranchised most of the urban centers -- still quite without regard to their relative numbers. We hold that the claim pleaded here neither rests upon nor implicates the Guaranty Clause and that its justiciability is therefore not foreclosed by our decisions of cases involving that clause. Therefore, they should be treated equally under apportionment law by being equally represented in legislative bodies. After noting that the issue of the charter government's legality had been resolved in that government's favor by the state courts of Rhode Island -- that the state courts, deeming the matter a political one unfit for judicial determination, had declined to entertain attacks upon the existence and authority of the charter government -- the Chief Justice held that the courts of the United States must follow those of the State in this regard. Accordingly, the judgment should be affirmed, and I join in that disposition of the cause.
No case of private rights or private property infringed, or in danger of actual or threatened infringement, is presented by the bill, in a judicial form, for the judgment of the court. The people have been rebuffed at the hands of the Assembly; they have tried the constitutional convention route, but since the call must originate in the Assembly it, too, has been fruitless. Appellants had standing to maintain this suit. Yet it is error to suppose that every case or controversy which touches foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance. The General Assembly of Tennessee consists of the Senate, with 33 members, and the House of Representatives, with 99 members. The right asserted is within the reach of judicial protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In New Jersey, counties of thirty-five thousand and of more than nine hundred and five thousand inhabitants respectively each have a single senator. Prior to the racial discrimination cases, this Court had recognized the action, by implication, in dictum in Swafford v. It is primarily the continued application of the 1901 Apportionment Act to this shifted and enlarged voting population which gives rise to the present controversy. A federal court enforcing the Federal Constitution is not, to be sure, bound by the remedial doctrines of the state courts. The case was returned to the federal court.
But such insulation is not carried over when state power is used as an instrument for circumventing a federally protected right. We are told that a single vote in Moore County, Tennessee, is worth 19 votes in Hamilton County, that one vote in Stewart or in Chester County is worth nearly eight times a single vote in Shelby or Knox County. In joining the opinion, I do not approve those decisions, but only construe the Court's opinion in this case as stating an accurate historical account of what the prior cases have held. Before questions of jurisdiction and if the issue was a political question were to be answered, they felt that they should have first decided to what extent was the right of a state to fix its own method of legislature apportionment limited by the Federal Constitution and whether or not Tennessee has done or failed to do so in the instance presented in Baker v. And see 11 The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster 217 1903.
The due process and equal protection claims were held nonjusticiable in Pacific States not because they happened to be joined with a Guaranty Clause claim, or because they sought to place before the Court a subject matter which might conceivably have been dealt with through the Guaranty Clause, but because the Court believed that they were invoked merely in verbal aid of the resolution of issues which, in its view, entailed political questions. And even for the purpose of determining the extent of congressional regulatory power over the tribes and dependent communities of Indians, it is ordinarily for Congress, not the Court, to determine whether or not a particular Indian group retains the characteristics constitutionally requisite to confer the power. Supreme Court ruled that it had probable jurisdiction in the matter. North Carolina, , , supra. Such matters, according to the district court, must be dealt with by the state legislature. If present representation has a policy at all, it is to maintain the status quo of invidious discrimination at any cost. The case proved one of the most exhausting in the Supreme Court's history, with the decision held over for re-argument because the court could not reach a majority decision.
The appellants' claim in this case ultimately rests entirely on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If not, do you think the executive or legislative branch of the federal government would have interfered? His case was motivated by the fact that Tennessee had not been redistricted since 1901, and that major demographical shifts had occurred since that time. This case does, in one sense, involve the allocation of political power within a State, and the appellants might conceivably have added a claim under the Guaranty Clause. I would think it all the more compelling for us to follow this principle of self-restraint when what is involved is the freedom of a State to deal with so intimate a concern as the structure of its own legislative branch. Their complaint is simply that the representatives are not sufficiently numerous or powerful -- in short, that Tennessee has adopted a basis of representation with which they are dissatisfied. Akron Metropolitan Park District, , state delegation of power to municipalities, Kiernan v.