MARSHALL ET AL.
v.
HARE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.

U.S. | 1964-06-22
No. 962
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment because the Michigan system of legislative apportionment is clearly a rational one and clearly does not frustrate effective majority rule., Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.
378 U.S. 561 Supreme Court of the United States (1964) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 12 L. Ed. 2d 1036 · 84 S. Ct. 1912 · 1964 U.S. LEXIS 847 · SCDB 1963-179
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Legislative Apportionment Rational Basis Review

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legislative Apportionment cases and more on FLexlaw

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U. S. 713. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds.

Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment because the Michigan system of legislative apportionment is clearly a rational one and clearly does not frustrate effective majority rule.

Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Sailors v. Bd. of Educ. of the Cnty. of Kent, 387 U.S. 105 (U.S. 1967)
    …icers4 (Gray v. Sanders, supra) or for state legislators. Reynolds v. Sims, supra; WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U. S. 633; Davis v. Mann, 377 U. S. 678; Roman v. Sincock, 377 U. S. 695; Lucas v. Colorado Gen. Assembly, 377 U. S. 713; Marshall v. Hare, 378 U. S. 561. They were all cases where elections had been provided and cast no light on when a State must provide for the election of local officials. A State cannot of course manipulate its political subdivisions so as to defeat a federally protected right,…
  • Reid v. Quebec Paper Sales & Transp. Co., 340 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1965)
    …orp., 296 F. 2d 1 (2 Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 843, 82 S.Ct. 874, 7 L.Ed.2d 847 (1962); Spinelli v. Isthmian Steamship Co., 326 F. 2d 870 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 935, 84 S.Ct. 1338, 12 L.Ed. 2d 298, rehearing denied, 377 U.S. 1010, 84 S.Ct. 1912, 12 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1964); Billeci v. United States, 298 F. 2d 703 (9 Cir. 1962); Rawson v. Calmar S.S. Corp., 304 F. 2d 202 (9 Cir. 1962); Sullivan v. United States, 203 F.Supp. 496 (S.D.N.Y.1961); Beeler v. Alaska Aggregate Corp., 336 F. 2d 108 (9 C…
  • League OF United Latin Am. Citizens v. Clements, 884 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1989)
    …statutory provisions protecting district lines will be nullified under the Supremacy Clause. U.S. Const, art. VI, cl. 2; see Butterworth v. Dempsey, 229 F.Supp. 754, 764 (D.Conn.), aff'd sub nom. Franklin v. Butterworth, 378 U.S. 562, 84 S.Ct. 1913, 12 L.Ed.2d 1036; and aff'd sub nom. Pinney v. Butterworth, 378 U.S. 564, 84 S.Ct. 1918, 12 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1964) (state constitutional or statutory limitations cannot bar action to comply with federal constitutional requirements). Moreover, if there is no violation f…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw