Citation network
Chapman Vs. Meier
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 27, 1975
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 1 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Chapman v. MeierSearch
-
U.S. 1 (1975) Chapman v. MeierSearch
-
preference for single member districts in court-ordered reapportionment plans that this Court recognized in Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
as was found to exist in Mahan v. HowellSearch
-
many others, has struggled to satisfy constitutional requirements for legislative apportionment delineated in Baker v. CarrSearch
-
Lucas v. ColoradoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
II Prior Litigation A. Things began to stir in North Dakota even prior to this Court's decision in Baker v. CarrSearch
-
until the proclamation was issued, the group's action was not subject to challenge in the courts. State ex rel. Aamoth v. SathreSearch
-
it stayed further proceedings before it, but did not dismiss the action. Lein v. SathreSearch
-
adopted by the apportionment group. That Page 420 U. S. 7 court assumed jurisdiction. State ex rel. Lein v. SathreSearch
-
challenge before it was to the apportionment group's plan, and that the 1931 apportionment was not challenged. Lein v. SathreSearch
-
E. The 1963 Legislative Assembly did reapportion. Laws 1963, c. 345. Page 420 U. S. 8 F. Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
court held that these constitutional and statutory provisions were violative of the Equal Protection Clause. Paulson v. MeierSearch
-
the ground that the 1965 act met constitutional requirements. The three-judge court, however, ruled otherwise. Paulson v. MeierSearch
-
as a unit must fall as violative of equal protection. State ex rel. Stockman v. AndersonSearch
-
U. S. 690 (1971), and Connor v. WilliamsSearch
-
court, and that route typically has been employed under conditions similar to those present here. See, e.g., Skolnick v. StateSearch
-
F.Supp. 839 (ND Ill 1971). We think this is correct procedure, and we conclude that we have jurisdiction. v. TheSearch
-
districts in apportionment plans adopted by States for their legislatures are per se unconstitutional. White v. RegesterSearch
-
Court has upheld numerous state-initiated apportionment schemes utilizing multi-member districts. See, e.g., Kilgarlin v. HillSearch
-
U. S. 433 (1965). And, beginning with Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
increases, the difficulty for the voter in making intelligent choices among candidates also increases. See Lucas v. ColoradoSearch
-
to voters in single member districts. This possibility, however, was rejected, absent concrete proof, in Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
Principle, 75 Yale L.J. 1309 (1966). Page 420 U. S. 17 In Fortson v. DorseySearch
-
be evidence that the group has been denied access to the political process equal to the access of other groups. White v. RegesterSearch
-
utilize multi-member districts, or where the members' residences are concentrated in one part of the district. Burns v. RichardsonSearch
-
or political group has been applied in cases involving apportionment schemes adopted by state legislatures. In Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
Ibid. This preference for and emphasis upon single member districts in court-ordered plans was reaffirmed in Connor v. WlliamsSearch
-
U.S. at 404 U. S. 551 , and again in Mahan v. HowellSearch
-
state legislature has initiated the use. The Page 420 U. S. 19 practical simultaneity of decision in Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
and in Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
ordered by the District Court. They only suggest that the District Court has not followed our mandate in Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
task. Id. at 366. Taking note of Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
abandonment of the general preference for single member districts in court-ordered plans which we recognized in Connor v. JohnsonSearch
-
and the ratio of the population of the largest to the smallest is 1.23 to 1. Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
is not required, there must be substantial compliance with the goal of population equality. Ibid. Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
facts, and a particular population deviation from the ideal may be permissible in some cases but not in others, Swann v. AdamsSearch
-
Id. at 385 U. S. 444 . See also Kilgarlin v. HillSearch
-
U.S. at 385 U. S. 444 . See also Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
equality appears now to be the preeminent, if not the sole, criterion on which to adjudge constitutionality, Wesberry v. SandersSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Chapman v. MeierSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial