Changes

== "One man, one vote" ==

== "One man, one vote" ==

For 200 years, including prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, State legislatures have decided for themselves how they would carve their own legislative districts at the State level.  All States (except Nebraska) have a "bicameral" legislature consisting of a house of representatives (call the "Assembly" in New Jersey), and a State senate.  The internal division of those districts within a State had long been considered a matter for only the State legislature to decide, without any interference by the federal government.  For example, should Newark be included in the same district as Morristown?  Should senate districts be based on county lines, or on population?  The U.S. Senate is not based on population, but on State boundaries.

For more than 200 years, including prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, State legislatures have decided for themselves how they would carve their own legislative districts at the State level.  All States (except Nebraska) have a "bicameral" legislature consisting of a house of representatives (called the "Assembly" in New Jersey), and a State senate.  The internal division of those districts within a State had long been considered a matter for only the State legislature to decide, without any interference by the federal government.  For example, should Newark be included in the same state legislative district as Morristown?  Should senate districts be based on county lines, or on population?  The U.S. Senate is not based on population, but on State boundaries.

In a decision having vast significance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that States must draw their districts to comply with a rule of "one man, one vote" (or "one person, one vote").  This means that districts must be drawn such that the population size of each district is nearly equal.  This is called "one man, one vote" because it requires that the relative weight of each man's vote is the same no matter where he lives in the State.  His vote cannot be crowded out by living in a district drawn to have a bigger population than other districts in the State.

In a decision having vast significance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that States must draw their districts to comply with a rule of "one man, one vote" (or "one person, one vote").  This means that districts for both houses of the state legislature must be drawn such that the population size of each district is nearly equal.  This is called "one man, one vote" because it requires that the relative weight of each man's vote is the same no matter where he lives in the State.  His vote cannot be crowded out by living in a district drawn to have a bigger population than other districts in the State.

The decision, based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, was ''Reynolds v. Sims'' (1964):

This U.S. Supreme Court decision, based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, was ''Reynolds v. Sims'' (1964):

{{cquote|the Equal Protection Clause requires that both houses of a state legislature be apportioned on a population basis}}

{{cquote|the Equal Protection Clause requires that both houses of a state legislature be apportioned on a population basis}}

''Reynolds v. Sims'', 377 U.S. 533, 583 (1964).  The Supreme Court thus required of States something that is not required of the U.S. Senate.

''Reynolds v. Sims'', 377 U.S. 533, 583 (1964).  The Supreme Court thus required of the States something that is not required of the U.S. Senate.

Four years later, a 5-3 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court extended the same requirement to county, city and town legislatures also:

Four years later, a 5-3 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court extended the same requirement to tens of thousands of county, city and town legislatures also:

{{cquote|the Constitution imposes one ground rule for the development of arrangements of local government: a requirement that units with general governmental powers over an entire geographic area not be apportioned among single-member districts of substantially unequal population.}}

{{cquote|the Constitution imposes one ground rule for the development of arrangements of local government: a requirement that units with general governmental powers over an entire geographic area not be apportioned among single-member districts of substantially unequal population.}}

''Avery v. Midland County'', 390 U.S. 474, 485-486 (1968).  (By "single-member districts" Justice White is referring to a district that elects only one representative for it.)

''Avery v. Midland County'', 390 U.S. 474, 485-486 (1968).  (By "single-member districts" Justice White is referring to a district that elects only one representative for it.)

Many State legislatures were outraged by these decisions, which they viewed as a burdensome, unjustified infringement on their state sovereignty.  Talk began of passing a constitutional amendment to overturn these decisions, just as other constitutional amendments have overturned prior Supreme Court decisions in the past (such as the 11th and 16th Amendments).

Many State legislatures were outraged by these decisions, which they viewed as a burdensome, unjustified infringement on their state sovereignty.  Talk began of passing a constitutional amendment to overturn these decisions, just as other constitutional amendments have overturned other Supreme Court decisions in the past (such as how the 11th and 16th Amendments overturned prior Supreme Court decisions).

=== Irony of political history ===

=== Irony of political history ===

In the 1960s one of the most powerful U.S. Senators was Everett Dirksen, who represented Illinois and served for more than a decade as the Republican floor leader in the U.S. Senate.  A Senate office building in D.C. bears his name today, in reflection of how well-liked and influential he was.

In the 1960s one of the most powerful U.S. Senators was Everett Dirksen, who represented Illinois and served for more than a decade as the Republican floor leader in the U.S. Senate.  A Senate office building in D.C. bears his name today, in reflection of how well-liked and influential he was.

The colorful Senator Dirksen personified the U.S. Senate to the American public, as he had charm and flair far greater than any politician today, as described by the Senate archives:<ref><small>http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senator_Everett_Mckinley_Dirksen_Dies.htm</small></ref>

The colorful Senator Dirksen personified the U.S. Senate to the American public, as he had charm and flair far greater than any politician today, as described by the Senate archives:<ref>http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senator_Everett_Mckinley_Dirksen_Dies.htm</ref>

{{cquote|His physical appearance, his dramatic flair, his cathedral-organ voice: all these attributes made him the personification of [a famous fictional senator in radio entertainment].  He was the grand marshal of the Tournament of Roses parade; he pioneered a televised weekly  press conference with his House counterpart; and, with a narrative album entitled Gallant Men, he became a recording star.  The hordes of admiring tourists who flocked to his leader’s office in the Capitol forced him to remove his name from its door.  ... He gained national attention in 1950 when he unseated the Senate Democratic majority leader in a bitter Illinois contest.  ... [A]s a supremely creative and resourceful legislator, Dirksen routinely influenced the agenda of the majority-party Democrats.  ... Cautioning that federal spending had a way of getting out of control, Dirksen reportedly observed, 'A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.'}}

{{cquote|His physical appearance, his dramatic flair, his cathedral-organ voice: all these attributes made him the personification of [a famous fictional senator in radio entertainment].  He was the grand marshal of the Tournament of Roses parade; he pioneered a televised weekly  press conference with his House counterpart; and, with a narrative album entitled Gallant Men, he became a recording star.  The hordes of admiring tourists who flocked to his leader’s office in the Capitol forced him to remove his name from its door.  ... He gained national attention in 1950 when he unseated the Senate Democratic majority leader in a bitter Illinois contest.  ... [A]s a supremely creative and resourceful legislator, Dirksen routinely influenced the agenda of the majority-party Democrats.  ... Cautioning that federal spending had a way of getting out of control, Dirksen reportedly observed, 'A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.'}}