Meyers v. Thigpen
Headline: Washington’s state legislative apportionment is affirmed, the case is sent back to determine appropriate relief consistent with recent apportionment rulings, and congressional districting is left unaddressed.
Holding:
- Affirms Washington’s state legislative apportionment decision for now.
- Sends the case back to courts to decide specific relief under Reynolds.
- Leaves Washington’s congressional districting question unaddressed in this appeal.
Summary
Background
This appeal concerns how Washington divided seats in its state legislature. A lower court issued a judgment about that apportionment scheme, and the matter was appealed to the Court. The opinion before the Court affirms the judgment below insofar as it relates to legislative seat apportionment and cites Reynolds v. Sims and related cases.
Reasoning
The main question was whether the state legislative apportionment at issue should stand under the Court’s recent apportionment decisions. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision on the merits about the state legislative seats. At the same time, the Court sent the case back for further proceedings limited to deciding what relief, if any, should be ordered, directing that those proceedings follow the views expressed in Reynolds v. Sims and the cases decided with it. The Court did not address congressional districting here because that issue was not presented in the appeal.
Real world impact
Practically, the state legislative apportionment ruling remains in effect while lower courts consider what relief to provide consistent with the Court’s apportionment opinions. This affects Washington voters and the state legislature because the underlying seat plan is affirmed for now. Because the Court did not rule on congressional districts in this appeal, questions about those districts are left for other proceedings.
Dissents or concurrances
Several Justices wrote separately: Justice Clark would affirm on the Reynolds grounds; Justice Stewart would remand consistent with his earlier views in Lucas; Justice Harlan dissents for reasons he stated in Reynolds.
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?