|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Alito disagreed with court decisions on reapportionment
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Race
|
| Contributor | RP |
| Last Edited | RP Nov 21, 2005 05:33pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Profile |
| Media | Newspaper - Boston Globe |
| News Date | Thursday, November 17, 2005 11:00:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | In the same 1985 job application in which Samuel A. Alito Jr. said there is not a constitutional right to abortion, he made a statement that has startled many legal analysts: He said he disagreed with the Warren court decisions on reapportionment, which required that voters have equal representation.
The reapportionment cases, heard by the court when Earl Warren was the chief justice, are among the court's most widely accepted decisions on civil rights and equal representation. Until the cases were decided in the early 1960s, many state legislators were elected by geographic area, rather than by population. The result was that a legislator representing a sparsely inhabited rural area had as much power as a representative of a much more heavily populated urban area.
Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said yesterday that the Supreme Court nominee's views ''on reapportionment cases are deeply troubling. His opposition to one person, one vote is an extraordinary statement about his views on important principles of . . . democracy."
The cases struck down some gross inequities. In New Hampshire, for example, a township with three people had one state representative, as did another district with 3,244 inhabitants. In Connecticut, one House district had 191 people, while another had 81,000, according to a list in 1964 that was compiled by Morris K. Udall, who was then a Democratic representative from Arizona. |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
