Fortson v. Toombs

Background

Georgia election officials appealed after a federal trial court found the State’s legislature was unequally apportioned and issued an injunction. That injunction stopped placing on the ballot any question asking voters to adopt an entirely new state constitution until the legislature was reapportioned. After the 1964 election produced many new legislators, the parties disputed whether that part of the injunction still needed to be in effect.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court did not decide the underlying question about whether a malapportioned legislature may propose a new constitution. Instead, the Court vacated the specific paragraph of the lower court’s decree that barred placing a legislatively proposed new constitution on ballots and remanded the matter to the lower court. The High Court instructed the lower court to reconsider whether an ongoing injunction is still necessary in light of the 1964 election results and the appellees’ statements that the threat is now speculative.

Real world impact

The decision does not settle the big legal dispute. It asks the trial court to reassess whether to continue restraining ballot measures now that the legislature’s composition has changed. For Georgia election administrators and voters, the ruling creates immediate uncertainty about whether future legislatures can or cannot submit a wholly new constitution to voters until a final decision is reached.

Dissents or concurrances

Concurring and dissenting opinions disagreed about procedure and scope: one Justice would have dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the injunction; another warned federal courts had overreached and would have struck key parts of the lower court’s order.