Scholle v. Hare

1962-04-23

Headline: Court throws out the lower judgment and sends Michigan’s challenge to unequal State Senate districts back to the state court for reconsideration in light of Baker v. Carr, affecting how voting representation is reviewed.

Holding: The Court vacated the Michigan Supreme Court’s judgment and sent the case back so the state court can reconsider the Equal Protection challenge to Michigan’s 1952 Senate districts in light of Baker v. Carr.

Real World Impact:

Requires Michigan Supreme Court to reevaluate unequal Senate districts.
Could lead to changes in how Michigan draws state Senate lines.
Clarifies courts may consider apportionment equal-protection claims.

Topics: state legislative districts, voting representation, equal protection, electoral apportionment

Summary

Background

A Michigan resident (Scholle) challenged the State’s 1952 constitutional amendments that froze State Senate districts at 34 geographically drawn seats, arguing those districts produced substantial inequality in voter representation and violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. The Michigan Supreme Court declined relief, concluding the State could establish such county-based districts. Scholle appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether courts may and should decide federal equal protection claims about state legislative districting. The Supreme Court, in a brief per curiam order, vacated the Michigan ruling and sent the case back so the state court can reconsider the constitutional claim in light of Baker v. Carr, which held that such apportionment claims are justiciable (subject to judicial review). The Court’s order did not decide whether the districts actually discriminate or violate equal protection.

Real world impact

The remand requires the Michigan Supreme Court to re-examine the equal protection challenge to the frozen 1952 Senate districts. The outcome could lead to changes in how Michigan draws or keeps its state Senate lines, but the high Court’s order itself does not settle the merits. Frankfurter did not participate in the decision.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Clark and Stewart joined the remand, stressing Baker made the claim judicially cognizable and that the order says nothing about the merits. Justice Harlan strongly dissented, arguing Baker does not control this case and urging dismissal or full Supreme Court review because Michigan’s referendum and constitutional fixation distinguish it from Baker.