Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes
Headline: Ruling overturns Maryland’s legislative maps and requires both houses to be apportioned substantially by population, correcting heavy underrepresentation of voters in the State’s largest counties.
Holding: The Court reversed the Maryland court and held that both houses of a state legislature must be apportioned substantially on a population basis under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee, invalidating Maryland’s plan.
- Requires Maryland to redraw legislative districts to reflect population before 1966 elections.
- Restores stronger voting power for residents of populous counties and Baltimore City.
- Invalidates current Senate and House apportionments that deviate significantly from population.
Summary
Background
Residents, taxpayers, and voters in four populous Maryland counties and the City of Baltimore challenged the State’s method of giving each county one senator and fixed House seats, arguing those rules denied equal voting rights. The courts below split. A temporary 1962 law added 19 House seats but large population disparities persisted: about 75.3% of Maryland’s people lived in five areas that elected only about one-third of the Senate and less than half of the House under the old rules.
Reasoning
The core question was whether both chambers of a state legislature must be apportioned largely by population under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court held that seats in both houses must be apportioned substantially on a population basis. It found Maryland’s plan — even after the 1962 stop-gap law — showed gross deviations from population-based representation and rejected arguments that history or similarity to the Federal Senate justified the disparities.
Real world impact
The decision invalidates Maryland’s existing legislative apportionment and sends the case back so the State can provide a constitutionally valid plan. The Court left the precise remedy to the State but made clear the legislature must act in time for the 1966 elections and that unconstitutional plans cannot be used.
Dissents or concurrances
A separate opinion urged further state-court review to decide whether the plan systematically prevented effective majority rule; another Justice noted qualifications but agreed with reversal for the reasons in Reynolds v. Sims.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?