Lucas et al. v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado et al.
377 U.S. 713 (1964)
Rule of Law:
A state legislative apportionment scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause if both houses are not apportioned substantially on a population basis, regardless of whether the scheme was approved by a majority of the state's electorate in a popular referendum.
Facts:
- In 1962, Colorado's legislative apportionment was based on a 1953 scheme that resulted in substantial population inequalities between legislative districts.
- By initiative, two competing constitutional amendments for reapportionment, Amendment No. 7 and Amendment No. 8, were placed on the November 1962 ballot.
- Amendment No. 8 proposed apportioning both houses of the Colorado legislature on a strict population basis.
- Amendment No. 7 proposed apportioning the House of Representatives based on population but largely retained the existing apportionment scheme for the Senate, which was based on a combination of population and other factors like geography and county lines.
- In the November 1962 election, Colorado voters approved Amendment No. 7 and rejected Amendment No. 8.
- Under the approved Amendment No. 7, the Senate was apportioned such that counties with only 33.2% of the state's total population could elect a majority of senators.
- The population variance ratio between the most and least populous Senate districts under Amendment No. 7 was approximately 3.6-to-1.
Procedural Posture:
- Voters, taxpayers, and residents of the Denver metropolitan area filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against state officials, challenging the constitutionality of the state's legislative apportionment.
- A three-judge District Court was convened.
- The District Court initially found a prima facie case of invidious discrimination but stayed the proceedings until after the November 1962 general election, in which two proposed apportionment amendments would be on the ballot.
- After Colorado voters approved Amendment No. 7, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to challenge the new apportionment scheme.
- The District Court, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the constitutionality of the apportionment plan established by Amendment No. 7 and dismissed the actions.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state legislative apportionment scheme violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if it apportions one house substantially on a population basis but the other on a combination of factors, creating significant population disparities among districts, even when that scheme has been approved by a statewide popular vote?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Warren
Yes, the apportionment scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Clause requires that both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned substantially on a population basis. The fact that an apportionment plan is adopted by popular referendum is constitutionally insignificant if the scheme fails to meet the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause. An individual's constitutionally protected right to cast an equally weighted vote cannot be denied or infringed upon by a vote of a majority of a state's electorate. The so-called 'federal analogy' is inapposite to state legislative apportionment, and rationales based on geography or history are insufficient to justify substantial deviations from population-based representation in both legislative chambers.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
No, the apportionment scheme does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Because the Colorado House of Representatives is fairly apportioned by population, the people of the state should have latitude to provide for representation in the other house on a different rational basis. Colorado's unique geography, diverse industries, and transportation difficulties provide a reasonable basis for the Senate's apportionment. The state's voters chose this plan through the initiative and referendum process, and the Court should not interfere with a system that the people themselves have intelligently and democratically selected.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart
No, the apportionment scheme does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause does not require that seats in both houses of a state legislature be apportioned solely on a population basis; it only requires that the plan be rational and not permit the systematic frustration of the will of a majority. Colorado's plan is a rational response to its unique geography and demography, designed to ensure representation for distinct regional interests while still preserving majority rule. The plan was overwhelmingly adopted by the people, and converting a single political theory of representation into a constitutional rule stifles state experimentation and ignores the diverse characteristics of each state.
Analysis:
This case, a companion to Reynolds v. Sims, decisively rejects the argument that voter approval can legitimize an otherwise unconstitutional apportionment scheme. It solidifies the 'one person, one vote' principle, making it clear that the standard applies to both houses of a state legislature, not just one. The ruling invalidated the 'federal analogy' as a justification for malapportionment at the state level, thereby forcing a majority of states to reapportion their legislatures. This decision fundamentally shifted the balance of political power in many states from rural to urban and suburban areas.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Lucas et al. v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado et al. (1964)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"