APGP

Name: ___Tanmay Bangalore____________________________ Date: ___17/11/11_____ Period: __5__

Presentation Notes Key CasesCongressional Districting

Directions: Use this form to complete the case brief using the CQ Supreme Collection synopsis as your source. Refer to the How to handout distributed in class to know how to write this up. 1. Case Title/Date: Baker v. Carr 2. Facts of the Case: The Constitution states that each state has members in the House of Representatives based on the state's share of the population, but does not prescribe how representatives are assigned within the state. Some states periodically redrew lines of congressional districts to equalize the representation of individuals between districts, but some states failed to redistrict after three decades despite major population shifts by the 1950s. In states like California, where most of the population was centered about Southern California and the Bay Area, senatorial districts grossly undervalued urban areas and overvalued rural votes. After the series of Civil Rights cases in the 1950s, voters believed their ballots were diluted by the misappropriation of representation in their districts. Urban voters in Tennessee launched Baker v. Carr to redistrict their district for the first time in 61 years, since 1901. In March 1962, the Court ruled in favor of the citizens, with Justice Brennan ruling that citizens who believed their votes had been diluted had the right to sue in federal district court, assigning the power and responsibility to afford relief from malapportionment to the lower courts. However, according to the current political question doctrine, the Court had previously refused jurisdiction because earlier questions had lacked manageable standards for resolving the issue; of course, in Gormillion, the Court had asserted the power to resolve problems deemed justiciable. The Courts two leading proponents of judicial restraint, Frankfurter and Harlan, were understandably outraged, with Frankfurter accusing the majority of risking the Courts prestige in an area that should be left to Congress. 3. Constitutional Question: The court tried to address the issue of whether the reapportionment of voting districts was a justiciable question whether the court had the power to decide in redistricting cases.

APGP

4. Decision & Reasoning/Significance: The case was decided in favor of the plaintiff, stating that Bakers case was justiciable and the courts could intervene in the reapportionment of voting districts. Justice Brennan reformulated the guidelines of what constituted a justiciable case, marking cases as political questions and not justiciable based on six factors first, if they possessed "Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department, with Brennan citing executive war powers and foreign affairs as examples of political departmentalization. Second, the court must not have judicially manageable or discoverable standards for resolving it. Third, a case was a political question if it was impossible to resolve without an initial policy determination of a kind for nonjudicial discretion; fourth, if it infringed on the powers of a particular branch of government; fifth, if it required unquestioning adherence to a previous political decision; sixth, if it was potentially embarrassing due to various multifarious opinions expressed on it by one department of government.

APGP

Name: ________________________________________ Date: _______________ Period: _____

Presentation Notes Key CasesCongressional Districting

Directions: Use this form to complete the case brief using the CQ Supreme Collection synopsis as your source. Refer to the How to handout distributed in class to know how to write this up. 5. Case Title/Date: Wesberry v. Sanders 6. Facts of the Case: After the landmark Baker v. Carr case, states began to reapportion districts to equalize their legislative clout. Some states, however, failed to redistrict and a number of cases entered the Court under the title Reynolds v. Sims in 1964. At the time, Georgias Fifth Congressional Districts population was over twice that of the average population in the rest of the states ten districts; however, the district court dismissed the case brought to the court despite the Supreme Courts earlier decision in Baker v. Carr. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, reversing the decision 6-3 and stating that the earlier decision was invalid because it abridged Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, which requires that one mans vote must be worth as much as anothers. Justice Clark, meanwhile, dissented, arguing that the case should decide whether the apportionment statue violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while also agreeing with the majority. 7. Constitutional Question: The constitutional question at hand was whether the representatives in each state should be appointed based on the populations in each state to equalize every mans congressional power. 8. Decision & Reasoning/Significance: The majority argued for a conventional reading of the Constitution. Justice Black wrote that the debates of the Constitutional Convention demonstrated that the Framers had meant for legislation by the People, guaranteeing equality of representation in the election of members in the House of Representatives. Justice Harlan, meanwhile, had the dissenting opinion, arguing that the Constitution provides the state legislatures and Congress over congressional reapportionment cases. This was a major precursor to apportionment cases a few months later.

APGP

Name: ________________________________________ Date: _______________ Period: _____

Presentation Notes Key CasesCongressional Districting

Directions: Use this form to complete the case brief using the CQ Supreme Collection synopsis as your source. Refer to the How to handout distributed in class to know how to write this up. 9. Case Title/Date: Shaw v. Reno 10. Facts of the Case:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 ensured that the minority vote would count, and Section 2 sought to guarantee an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process for minorities. Section 5, meanwhile, provided that states would redistrict areas to give minorities proportional representation in the total makeup of a states congressional delegation. In the case of Gomillion v. Lightfoot, gerrymandering along district lines was illegalized, while Rogers v. Lodge ruled that districts could have black majorities. After the 1990 census, the states had to redraw their district lines, and the Justice Department pressured states to create more majority-minority districts to ensure at least some black representation. Courts were soon flooded with challenges from whites who claimed that redistricting deprived them of an equal vote. In Shaw, the Court ruled that whites in North Carolina had a justiciable claim under the Equal Protection Clause to challenge the redistricting. The majority-minority district in North Carolina was an odd shape, as well, which was a serious problem with the North Carolina plan. 11. Constitutional Question:

The constitutional question at hand was whether redistricting by race must be held to a standard under the Equal Protection Clause. 12. Decision & Reasoning/Significance:

North Carolina revised its districting with one majority-minority black district, a district with a black majority. The state created a district that was a 160 mile long winding curve to connect areas with a large black population. Justice Sandra Day OConnor called the new district bizarre and the court found that such an odd shape is unexplainable beyond the grounds of race and should be held to the standard of strict scrutiny. The dissenters noted that the case was brought to court by white voters

APGP

challenging North Carolinas first black representatives since Reconstruction. Additionally, the holding citing the 14th Amendment made redistricting blacks subject to more scrutiny than other districts.

APGP

Name: ________________________________________ Date: _______________ Period: _____

Presentation Notes Key CasesCongressional Districting

Directions: Use this form to complete the case brief using the CQ Supreme Collection synopsis as your source. Refer to the How to handout distributed in class to know how to write this up. 13. 14. Case Title/Date: Miller v. Johnson Facts of the Case:

In 1991, Georgia adopted a redistricting plan that called for two of the states eleven districts to have majority black populations. However, under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Georgia had to apply for preclearance from the Justice Department before they could follow through with the plan, and the department refused to approve it. By 1992, a third plan was agreed upon creating three majority black districts. Five white voters placed in one of these districts filed suit against the plan, claiming that it segregated voters based on race and that race-based districting should be subject to scrutiny. Georgias governor, Zell Miller, appealed to the Supreme Court, as did a number of black and white voters affected by the ruling. The Court heard the Miller v. Johnson case as well as a case from Louisiana on the same subject, Abrams v. Johnson. The Louisiana case was dismissed by the Court, while the Georgia case deemed redistricting unconstitutional and set a racial line-setting standard for the future. Justice Kennedy said that the Courts initial decision in Shaw v. Reno did not limit challenges to plans that created irregularly shaped districts. In that case, the odd district shape was circumstantial evidence, and race had been the dominating factor; therefore, the lower court had correctly concluded that race drove the Georgia plan. The plan was therefore subject to scrutiny under Shaw v. Reno. Kennedy also criticized the Justice Departments reading of the Voting Rights Act. 15. Constitutional Question:

The constitutional question at hand was whether redistricting by race in Georgia was subject to scrutiny. 16. Decision & Reasoning/Significance:

As stated previously, Justice Kennedy said that the Courts initial decision in Shaw v. Reno did not limit challenges to plans that created irregularly

APGP

shaped districts. In that case, the odd district shape was circumstantial evidence, and race had been the dominating factor; therefore, the lower court had correctly concluded that race drove the Georgia plan. The plan was therefore subject to scrutiny under Shaw v. Reno. Kennedy also criticized the Justice Departments reading of the Voting Rights Act. Justice OConnor also said that the decision did not cast doubts on the majority of congressional districts in the country even if race was considered in the redistricting process. The dissenting justices, however Stevens and Ginsburg stated that the ruling threw the whole redistricting process into turmoil. States would be required to consider race by statutory mandates and political realities. The Courts ruling would also invite searching review of racial redistricting, leaving lawmakers with no assurance that plans conscious of race would be upheld.