Representation Issue Before U.S. Court

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30289, 15 November 1963, Page 9

Representation Issue Before U.S. Court

[Specially written for the N.Z.P.A. by FRANK OLIVER]

WASHINGTON, November 12. The Supreme Court today began hearing arguments in legislative reapportionment cases and the decision or decisions it gives will rank as the most important since the segregation decision a decade ago, and possibly even more important.

The decisions will probably change the composition of all State Legislatures and the House of Representatives as well.

Only two institutions will be exempt from the rulings, the Senate and the Electoral College, both of which were set up by the Constitution on other than a basis of population. At stake is whether all voters are entitled to equal representation—whether legislators shall as far as reasonably possible represent an equal number of constituents, or whether obvious inequalities shall be permitted to continue. One of the worst examples, which comes from California, underlines the problem. In that State one member in the State Legislature represents 5.000,000 people in an expanding city. Besides him sits a fellow legislator who represents a far larger geographical area, but it is mostly forest and lake but has a few thousand inhabitants.

Rural Strangleholds Conditions differ from State to State, but by and large it is true that over most of the country the rural areas are in control of legislation and legislative processes. They have a stranglehold in many areas which the urban areas cannot break, for the rural areas always have the majorities to block efforts at reform. and so the system has become self-perpetuating. But the reformers were given a ray of hope nearly two years ago when the Supreme Court handed down a decision that lower courts did have jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning the manner in which seats in State Legislatures are divided among the voters. Self-Reform Suits were soon started in no less than 36 States and in 19 States courts have found the existing svstems unconstitutional In ’ other States, threats of court action have forced the Legislatures to reform themselves. However, self-reform is never notorious for going very far or being very radical and suits have been instituted in those States anyway. Today the Court began hearing arguments concerning conditions in five States and before the present term is over conditions in six more States will have been aired before the nine Justices. Some important States are involved. including New York, Ohio. Michigan and California, not to mention a number of Southern States, including Virginia. Alabama and Florida. No Clear Pattern Lower Court decisions in a number of States have set no clear pattern. For instance, the Michigan Supreme Court insisted that both State Houses should be apportioned strictly on a population basis, but the Maryland decision was that only one house need be on a population basis. As one commentator has put it. the Supreme Court’s business now is to sort out the decisions of the Lower Courts, analyse arguments by

a flock of lawyers, and attempt to bring some rationalisation into a very complicated situation. Alabama, as might be expected, is asking that the decision of its Supreme Court be tossed out completely and that the whole problem be returned to the State, which means continuing the antiquated system of allowing rural areas to run things. Indeed the State's argument is that a State policy to protect rural interests is permissible. Federal Interest Naturally the Federal Government is interested in these cases and the Solicitor-Gen-eral will argue that the basic standard and apportionment must be population. No-one knows how long the arguments will take and it may be months before the Supreme Court’s decision is rendered, but today every State capital and every large city in the nation has its eyes on the Court. The general feeling is that very definite reforms are inevitable, for State officials will have a hard time persuading the nine Justices that the rural legislators should represent the land and urban

legislators represent the people. If expected reforms are decided on by the Court then the political face of the nation will come under vast and important changes over the next few years. Politicians are already trying to size up some of the effects, for there is really no clear pattern of political sentiment across the nation. In some Northern cities, for instance, liberalism is dominated and conservatism rules in the countryside, but this is believed not to be the case in some Southern areas. 14th Amendment There was a time when reapportionment was considered to be too political for judicial consideration, but the Supreme Court decided early in 1962 in a case in Tennessee that the courts should tackle the problem and now the Supreme Court will have to decide what the Fourteenth Amendment means in legislative apportionment. The amendment guarantees “equal protection of the laws.” As the “New York Times” says, what the Court decides in these cases will permanently affect American politics.