No, we can't get involved. The Constitution puts Congress and state lawmakers in charge of elections, not judges. This is a political fight, not a legal one. If judges step into this 'political thicket,' we could make a mess and maybe even make things worse. The only way to fix unfair maps is for voters to elect politicians who will draw them fairly.

I agree we shouldn't get involved, but for a slightly different reason. I think the court technically *could* hear this case, but it's such a sensitive political issue that it's just wiser to stay away. The solution the voters want might create even bigger problems, so it's best for the Court to not exercise its power here.

Yes, of course the court should get involved! When a state law makes one person's vote worth nine times another's, it's obviously unfair and unconstitutional. The whole point of the Constitution's 'equal protection' promise is to stop this kind of discrimination. Saying this is just 'politics' is an excuse to ignore a real violation of people's rights.

No, judges can't fix unfair voting districts. That's a job for politicians, not courts. We're saying no to this case because it's too political for judges to decide. The Constitution says it's Congress's job to make sure states have fair representation in the House of Representatives. If Congress isn't doing its job, it's up to the people to vote for better politicians. This whole issue is tangled up in political party fights, and courts shouldn't get involved in that mess. If people think the voting districts are unfair, they need to get their state politicians or Congress to fix it, not ask judges to do it.

I agree with the result, but for slightly different reasons. I think the Court could step in if it really had to, but this case isn't important enough for that. It's a tricky situation that could cause problems with state officials and Congress. There's not enough time to fix things before the election anyway. Forcing a state-wide election might make votes more equal, but it would go against what Congress wants. Sometimes the fix can be worse than the problem. So in this case, I think it's okay for the Court to say 'no thanks' to getting involved.

I disagree with the other judges. I think the Court should step in and fix this problem. The way Illinois set up its voting districts isn't fair and goes against the Constitution. Some people's votes count way less than others, and that's not right. The Constitution says everyone's vote should count about the same. This isn't just a 'political' issue - it's about protecting people's right to vote, which is super important. Courts have stepped in before to protect people's rights and property, so they should do it here too. We could fix this by stopping the unfair election and making Illinois have a state-wide vote instead. It might be a bit messy, but it would be fair.

That is why, in Marbury, despite finding that William Marbury's rights had been violated, the Court left him without a remedy: Congress had not properly granted the Court jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, and thus no remedy could be crafted or enforced for the violation of Marbury's rights

This is especially so in redistricting cases.[6] Such cases reflect a general hesitance of courts to step into what Justice Felix Frankfurter called the "political thicket" of legislative reapportionment.

In a world in which the role of federal courts in redistricting disputes had been transformed from spectating

The decision turned on the judgment that reapportionment of Congressional Districts was a political question.

In rejecting the notion that the Court should get involved in what it viewed as a political question, Justice Frankfurter wrote that "[c] ourts ought not to enter this political thicket

—holding that a "[v] iolation of the great guaranty of a republican form of government in States cannot be challenged in the courts

The Constitution has left the performance of many duties in our governmental scheme to depend on the fidelity of the executive and legislative action and, ultimately, on the vigilance of the people in exercising their political rights. "

In 1946, the Court expressly held in an opinion by Justice Frankfurter that such claims were "of a peculiarly political nature and therefore not [fit] for judicial determination."

—same in all respects as those in another case, but the principle announced in those decisions applies here, and the reasons back of the rule there announced likewise apply here: "From the determination of such (political) issues (as here involved) this Court has traditionally held aloof. It is hostile to a democratic system to involve the judiciary in the politics of the people …

The Supreme Court stated that "voters who allege facts showing disadvantage to themselves as individuals have standing to sue."

No, a challenge to a state's congressional apportionment scheme is a non-justiciable political question beyond the competence of the federal courts. The Court should not enter this 'political thicket' because the Constitution delegates the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections to the state legislatures and, ultimately, to Congress under Article I, § 4. The controversy concerns matters that bring courts into immediate and active relations with party contests, which is hostile to a democratic system. If courts were to invalidate the current districting scheme, it might result in at-large elections, which could be a worse outcome and might be rejected by the House of Representatives. The remedy for unfairness in districting lies with the political process: voters must secure state legislatures that will apportion properly or invoke the powers of Congress.

No, the Court should not grant relief in this case, although the issue is technically justiciable. While the Court has the power to hear such a case, it should exercise its equitable discretion and decline to intervene. The matter is of such a delicate political character, involving potential clashes with state officials and Congress, that jurisdiction should be exercised only in the most compelling circumstances. The cure sought by the plaintiffs—forcing at-large elections—might be worse than the disease of malapportionment. Therefore, the Court properly declines to exercise its jurisdiction in this matter.

Yes, a federal court has jurisdiction to hear this challenge, as it presents a justiciable controversy, not a political question. The gross inequality in voting power, where one citizen's vote is worth only one-ninth of another's, is a 'wholly indefensible discrimination' that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To label this a 'political question' is a 'play on words' used to avoid the judiciary's duty to protect fundamental constitutional rights. The right to vote and have one's vote counted effectively is guaranteed by Article I, and the Court has a duty to invalidate state laws that abridge this right. The Court has the power to declare the apportionment unconstitutional and enjoin its use, leaving the state to conduct at-large elections, which is a constitutional alternative.

No. The federal judiciary does not have the authority to intervene in state legislative apportionment issues because these are political questions that are not suitable for judicial resolution. I affirm the dismissal of the complaint because due regard for the effective working of our Government reveals this issue to be of a peculiarly political nature and therefore not meet for judicial determination. The Constitution has conferred upon Congress exclusive authority to secure fair representation by the States in the popular House and left to that House determination whether States have fulfilled their responsibility. If Congress failed in exercising its powers, whereby standards of fairness are offended, the remedy ultimately lies with the people. The stark fact that emerges from a study of Congressional apportionment is its embroilment in politics, in the sense of party contests and party interests. To sustain this action would cut very deep into the very being of Congress. Courts ought not to enter this political thicket. The remedy for unfairness in districting is to secure State legislatures that will apportion properly, or to invoke the ample powers of Congress.

I concur in the result. While I believe the Court has power to afford relief in a case of this type based on Smiley v. Holm, I think this complaint should be dismissed for want of equity. The case is of such a delicate character, in view of the considerations noted in the majority opinion, that the jurisdiction should be exercised only in the most compelling circumstances. The relief sought pitches this Court into delicate relations with state officials and Congress. The shortness of time remaining makes it doubtful whether effective relief could be secured. To force an election at large might bring greater equality of voting right but would deprive citizens of representation by districts which Congress commands. The right here is not absolute, and the cure sought may be worse than the disease. Therefore, this is a case where the Court may properly decline to exercise its jurisdiction.

I dissent. The District Court had jurisdiction, the complaint presented a justiciable case and controversy, and petitioners had standing to sue. The 1901 State Apportionment Act denies petitioners equal protection of the laws by creating grossly unequal voting power among districts. It also violates Article I of the Constitution by abridging petitioners' right to vote for and be represented by Congressmen. The Constitution implies a policy that state election systems should give approximately equal weight to each vote cast. While states have authority over Congressional elections, this power is to implement Constitutional policy, not formulate it. The Court has a duty to invalidate state laws that defeat the Constitutional policy of equality of representation. This is not a 'political question' that courts must avoid - it involves vindicating the Constitutional right to cast an effective ballot. Federal courts have not hesitated to exercise equity power in cases involving deprivation of property and liberty, and should do so here to protect the fundamental right to choose representatives. A decree could be enforced by prohibiting elections under the invalid districts and allowing at-large elections, as in Smiley v. Holm.

Colegrove v. Green

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot