Roman v. Sincock

Background

Residents, taxpayers, and qualified voters of New Castle County (including Wilmington) sued state election officials, arguing that Delaware’s fixed 1897 apportionment gave far more voting power to the two less-populous counties. The District Court convened a three-judge panel, examined census evidence showing huge population disparities among districts, and found both the old 1897 scheme and the 1963 amendment produced unconstitutional discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether both houses of a state legislature must be apportioned substantially by population. Relying on its companion ruling in Reynolds v. Sims, the Court held that neither the pre-1963 plan nor the 1963 amendment met the population-based requirement. It rejected attempts to justify the disparities by comparing state legislative apportionment to the Federal Congress or by historical county status, and affirmed the District Court’s finding that the scheme debased the voting power of many citizens.

Real world impact

The ruling requires Delaware to adopt a constitutionally valid reapportionment plan substantially based on population. The Court affirmed the lower court and remanded the case so the District Court can decide practical relief, including whether the 1964 election may proceed under the invalidated amendment while the Legislature works on a lawful plan. The decision directly affects voters in New Castle County and Wilmington who were shown to be underrepresented.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Clark wrote a brief concurrence in the companion opinion; Justice Harlan filed a dissent; Justice Stewart wrote separately agreeing in part with the District Court’s finding of arbitrariness.