In this discussion, we will explore the significance of two important cases that address the issue of representation. Both cases examine the process of redistricting in various states across the country and the impact that the redrawing of lines has on voting rights.
Key Vocabulary
Reapportionment
Reapportionment is the redistribution of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives based on changes in population. These changes are recorded by the U.S. Census, which is conducted every 10 years. In the House, federal law requires that there is always a total of 435 seats, with each seat representing one district. As states change population at different rates, the number of those 435 seats each one holds can go up or down, leading to reapportionment.
Redistricting
Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. All United States Representatives and state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years to ensure that each district has roughly the same number of people.
Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering refers to the act of politicians manipulating the redrawing of legislative district lines in order to help their supporters, especially the incumbent. They may seek to help one party win extra seats, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering.
Baker v Carr
Background
Charles Baker, a resident of an urban neighborhood in Tennessee, filed suit in federal court against Joe Carr, then Secretary of State of Tennessee. Baker sought a court injunction to postpone elections until the state had fulfilled its duty to reapportion its legislative districts, which it had not done since 1901 (over 60 years). Despite the Tennessee Constitution requiring reapportionment every ten years, Baker's claim was based on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Decision
Baker argued that due to population changes in the state, specifically migration to cities, his vote in an urban area had much less weight than that of a voter in a rural district, constituting a "debasement of [his] votes." The Supreme Court's decision opened the door to judicial review of the redistricting process, prompting a cascade of subsequent lawsuits and sent shockwaves through the redistricting community. The opinion laid the groundwork for the rapid development of the "one-person one-vote" principle.
Impact
By 1964, only two years later, 26 states had reapportioned their legislative districts, three under court-drawn plans, many more under judicial pressure. By 1966, that number rose to 46 states. The One-Person One-Vote Rule refers to the rule that one person's voting power ought to be roughly equivalent to another person's within the same state.
Shaw v Reno
Background
After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in population. The US Department of Justice rejected North Carolina's district plan and instructed the state assembly to add another majority-minority district in order to comply with recent amendments to the Voting Rights Act. The proposed second district was oddly shaped, following along a highway for nearly the entire length of the state. A group of white voters in North Carolina, led by Ruth O. Shaw, sued on the grounds that the district was an unconstitutional gerrymander.
Decision
In a 5-4 decision, the Court agreed that the shape of the proposed district was so odd that there was no compelling explanation for its shape other than separating voters by race. Shaw v Reno established the precedent that race cannot be the predominant factor in determining a district. Four of the justices dissented, citing reasons that the white voters who brought the suit could not prove they had been injured by the redistricting plan, and that the plan was an attempt to provide minority voters with an effective voice in the political process, not to strip voting power from a particular group.
In conclusion, these cases illustrate the important constitutional issues surrounding reapportionment and redistricting. The decisions made in these cases have had a lasting impact on the way district lines are drawn and the principle of equal representation. Reapportionment is a critical process that ensures fair representation for all citizens, and the rulings in these cases have contributed significantly to shaping the redistricting landscape in the United States.
