Smiley v. Holm

Last updated

Smiley v. Holm
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 16–17, 1932
Decided April 11, 1932
Full case nameW. Yale Smiley v. Holm, as Secretary of State of Minnesota
Citations285 U.S. 355 ( more )
Holding
The U.S. Constitution does not forbid a governor from vetoing a redistricting proposal passed by the state legislature. Minnesota Supreme Court decision reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
Willis Van Devanter  · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis  · George Sutherland
Pierce Butler  · Harlan F. Stone
Owen Roberts  · Benjamin N. Cardozo
Case opinion
MajorityHughes, joined by unanimous
Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1

Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355(1932), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving a governor's power to veto a congressional redistricting proposal passed by a state's legislature. In an opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, the Court unanimously held that the U.S. Constitution did not prohibit Minnesota's governor from vetoing that state's redistricting map.

Contents

Background

The U.S. Constitution states that seats in the House of Representatives "shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers....The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such regulations...". After each decennial census, House seats are reapportioned to take account of changes in the states' populations: states that have grown quickly may gain seats, while those that have not may lose them. Each state then may redraw the boundaries of its congressional districts. [1] Politicians often engage in gerrymandering, the process of drawing district lines in a way that benefits one's party electorally. [2]

In the state of Minnesota, the Republican Party had long enjoyed political dominance. But economic changes in the early twentieth century resulted in increasing dissatisfaction with Republicans, leading to the formation of the Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party, which included advocates for farmers and members of the organized labor movement. The Farmer–Labor Party slowly gained electoral support throughout the 1920s, but Republicans retained their strong control over the state's government and congressional delegation. In the 1930 gubernatorial election, voters for the first time sent a member of the Farmer–Labor Party – Floyd B. Olson – to the governor's mansion, although Republicans continued to control the state legislature. Consequently, partisan conflict between Olson and the Republican legislature resulted during the 1931 legislative session, including with regard to redistricting. [2]

As a result of the 1930 United States census, Minnesota's representation in Congress decreased from ten seats to nine. [3] The Republican-controlled legislature, aiming to ensure that Republicans retained their seats in the House despite growing Farmer–Labor support, passed a heavily gerrymandered map. They expected that Olson would support some sort of compromise because a failure to pass any map would result in at-large elections, an outcome that they predicted Olson would wish to avoid. Yet Olson nonetheless vetoed the bill, believing that the Republicans' intransigence would benefit his party at the polls even if at-large elections occurred. In response, Republicans suggested that the governor's veto was meaningless: Senator A.J. Rockne stated that "[t]he Federal Constitution does not require that the redistricting should be done through any other source than by the Legislature and does not provide that the Governor have anything to do with the matter." The state House of Representatives passed a resolution ordering Mike Holm, the Republican Secretary of State, to record the law as having been duly passed, the governor's veto notwithstanding. Holm complied and began accepting applications from candidates who wished to run in the newly drawn districts. W. Yale Smiley, a Minneapolis attorney, sued Holm, arguing that the redistricting plan was unlawful because it had been vetoed by the governor. Both a state district court and the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected his arguments, holding that under the Constitution, the legislature alone had power over redistricting. Smiley appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. [2]

Decision

Due to the Smiley decision, Minnesota's 1932 congressional elections were held at large. This sample ballot shows the thirty different candidates presented to voters in the general election. 1932 Minnesota congressional ballot.jpg
Due to the Smiley decision, Minnesota's 1932 congressional elections were held at large. This sample ballot shows the thirty different candidates presented to voters in the general election.

By a unanimous vote of 8 to 0 (Justice Benjamin Cardozo had recused himself), the Supreme Court reversed the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes concluded that the phrase "legislature" in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution referred to the state's general lawmaking power rather than to the state's legislative assembly itself. He distinguished the ratification process for constitutional amendments (a context in which the governor cannot veto the work of the legislature) from congressional redistricting: he argued that redistricting, unlike ratification, was an example of lawmaking and thus was subject to the ordinary legislative procedures prescribed in the state constitution. [2] [4] He reasoned that although Congress had the constitutional authority to displace state redistricting procedures, it had not exercised that power in the context of the gubernatorial veto; consequently, Minnesota's ordinary procedures for passing legislation, including the gubernatorial veto, remained in place. [3] The Court declined to rule on a separate question about whether the Apportionment Act of 1911 remained in force; [5] that issue was later addressed in Wood v. Broom (1932). [1] Hughes held that since no redistricting plan had been validly enacted, Minnesota was obligated to conduct its upcoming congressional elections at large. [2]

In the at-large 1932 House elections, eighty-eight candidates filed to run; the ballot for the general election contained thirty candidates: nine from each of the three major parties plus three Communists who had been nominated by petition. [6] All but two of the incumbent congressmen were ousted; the Farmer-Labor Party took five of the nine seats while the Republican delegation was reduced from nine congressmen to three. [2]

Subsequent developments

In Koenig v. Flynn and Carroll v. Becker, two similar 1932 cases arising from gubernatorial vetoes of redistricting plans in New York and Missouri, respectively, the Court relied on Smiley to summarily uphold lower-court decisions striking down maps that had been vetoed and ordering at-large elections. [5] The Court in Colegrove v. Green (1946) referred to the Smiley decision in its ruling on a malapportioned Illinois congressional map: Justices Hugo Black and Wiley Rutledge each cited it to conclude that disputes involving redistricting were justiciable. [7] References to Smiley appeared in both the majority and dissenting opinions in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), a case asking whether Arizona's independent redistricting commission violated Article I, Section 4. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2003 Texas redistricting</span> Controversial redistricting of Texass districts for the U.S. House of Representatives

The 2003 Texas redistricting refers to a controversial mid-decade state plan that defined new Congressional districts. In the 2004 elections, this redistricting supported the Republicans taking a majority of Texas's House seats for the first time since Reconstruction. Opponents challenged the plan in three suits, combined when the case went to the United States Supreme Court in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alabama's congressional districts</span>

The U.S. state of Alabama is currently divided into seven congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California's congressional districts</span> U.S. House districts in the state of California

California is the most populous U.S. state; as a result, it has the most representation in the United States House of Representatives, with 52 Representatives. Each Representative represents one congressional district.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pennsylvania's congressional districts</span> Congressional districting since 2003

After the 2000 census, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was divided into 19 congressional districts, decreasing from 21 due to reapportionment. After the 2010 census, the number of districts decreased again to 18.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Jersey Redistricting Commission</span> Constitutional body of New Jersey tasked with redrawing the states Congressional election

The New Jersey Redistricting Commission is a constitutional body of the government of New Jersey tasked with redrawing the state's Congressional election districts after each decade's census. Like Arizona, Idaho, Hawaii, Montana, and Washington; the redistricting is completed within an independent, bipartisan commission. The apportionment of members of the Redistricting Commission is carefully balanced between legislative and executive majorities and is purposefully designed to allow the minority party an equal number of seats on the commission.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Minnesota</span> Politics of the U.S. state of Minnesota.

Minnesota is known for a politically active citizenry, with populism being a longstanding force among the state's political parties. Minnesota has consistently high voter turnout; in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, 77.8% of eligible Minnesotans voted – the highest percentage of any U.S. state or territory – versus the national average of 61.7%. This was due in part to its same day voter registration laws; previously unregistered voters can register on election day, at their polls, with evidence of residency.

Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering. The court, in a plurality opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, with Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring in the judgment, upheld the ruling of the District Court in favor of the appellees that the alleged political gerrymandering was not unconstitutional. Subsequent to the ruling, partisan bias in redistricting increased dramatically in the 2010 redistricting round.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 United States elections</span>

The 2012 United States elections took place on November 6, 2012. Democratic President Barack Obama won election to a second term, though the Republican Party retained control of the House of Representatives. As of 2020, this is the most recent election cycle in which neither the presidency nor a chamber of Congress changed partisan control.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in Pennsylvania</span> Overview about redistricting in Pennsylvania

Redistricting in Pennsylvania refers to the decennial process of redrawing state legislative and federal congressional districts in Pennsylvania.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in Arizona</span> Overview about redistricting in Arizona

The U.S. state of Arizona, in common with the other U.S. states, must redraw its congressional and legislative districts every ten years to reflect changes in the state and national populations. Redistricting normally follows the completion of the United States Census, which is carried out by the federal government in years that end in 0; the most recent Census took place in 2020. Historically, Arizona's legislature had control over the redistricting process. However, Proposition 106, passed in 2000, delegated the power to draw congressional and legislative boundaries to a bipartisan independent commission. The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) comprises two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent chair. County and local redistricting, which normally takes place along the same timeline as congressional and legislative redistricting, is carried out by the individual county and local governments rather than the AIRC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gerrymandering in the United States</span> Setting electoral district boundaries to favor specific political interests in legislative bodies

Gerrymandering in the United States has been used to increase the power of a political party. Gerrymandering is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a salamander.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in California</span>

Redistricting in California has historically been highly controversial. Critics have accused legislators of attempting to protect themselves from competition by gerrymandering districts. Conflicts between the governor and the legislature during redistricting often have only been resolved by the courts.

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court upheld the right of Arizona voters to remove the authority to draw election districts from the Arizona State Legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting commission.

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) is a US organization that focuses on redistricting and is affiliated with the Democratic Party. The organization coordinates campaign strategy, directs fundraising, organizes ballot initiatives and files lawsuits against state redistricting maps. At launch, the organization announced that it intends to support Democratic candidates for local and state offices in order for them to control congressional map drawing in the redistricting cycle following the 2020 United States census.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 United States redistricting cycle</span>

The 2020 United States redistricting cycle is in progress following the completion of the 2020 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies will re-draw state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives will also draw new districts for that legislative body.

<i>League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania</i> 2018 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case regarding gerrymandering

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al.—abbreviated League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth—was a decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on gerrymandering, concerning the power of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to draw maps based on partisan advantage. The Court ruled that the maps adopted by the Republican controlled legislature in 2011 was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the Constitution of Pennsylvania.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in Wisconsin</span>

Redistricting in Wisconsin is the process by which boundaries are redrawn for municipal wards, Wisconsin State Assembly districts, Wisconsin State Senate districts, and Wisconsin's congressional districts. Redistricting occurs—as in other U.S. states—once every decade, usually in the year after the decennial United States Census. According to the Wisconsin Constitution, redistricting in Wisconsin follows the regular legislative process, it must be passed by both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature and signed by the Governor of Wisconsin—unless the Legislature has sufficient votes to override a gubernatorial veto. Due to legislative gridlock, however, it has become common for Wisconsin redistricting to be conducted by courts. The 1982, 1992, and 2002 legislative maps were each created by panels of United States federal judges.

The Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's "legislature". Traditionally, this has been interpreted to refer to "the legislative process used in [a] state, determined by that state's own constitution and laws." Advocates of the independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) interpret this as limiting such authority to the state's elected lawmakers, while the state's executive branch, judiciary, or other bodies with legislative power have no powers of electoral oversight. Accordingly, in the event of a conflict between congressional election regulations enacted by a state's legislature and those derived from other sources of state law, that conflict must be resolved in favor of the state legislature's enactments, even over state constitutional provisions, and similarly over ballot initiatives which effectively modify a state constitution. Proponents of ISL further claim that adjudicating such purported conflicts is the province of the federal judiciary of the United States.

Moore v. Harper is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to the independent state legislature theory (ISL), arising from the redistricting of North Carolina's districts following the 2020 Census.

References

  1. 1 2 Wormser, Michael D., ed. (1982). Congressional Quarterly's Guide to Congress (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly. pp. 691–704. ISBN   978-0-87187-239-5.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Schweigert, Benedict J. (2008). ""Now for a Clean Sweep!": Smiley v. Holm, Partisan Gerrymandering, and At-Large Congressional Elections". Michigan Law Review . 107 (1): 133–164. ISSN   0026-2234. JSTOR   40041659.
  3. 1 2 Claude, Richard (1970). The Supreme Court and the Electoral Process. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press. p. 207. ISBN   978-0-8018-1071-8.
  4. ↑ Kirby, James C. (1962). "Limitations on the Power of State Legislatures over Presidential Elections". Law and Contemporary Problems. 27 (3): 495–509. doi:10.2307/1190592. ISSN   0023-9186. JSTOR   1190592.
  5. 1 2 Strum, Philippa (1974). The Supreme Court and "Political Questions": A Study in Judicial Evasion. University, AL: University of Alabama Press. pp. 36–40. ISBN   978-0-8173-4724-6.
  6. ↑ Shumate, Roger V. (1933). "Minnesota's Congressional Election at Large". The American Political Science Review. 27 (1): 58–63. doi:10.2307/1947345. ISSN   0003-0554. JSTOR   1947345. S2CID   147059249.
  7. ↑ Yarbrough, Tinsley E. (1992). "The "Political Thicket" of Malapportionment". In Johnson, John W. (ed.). Historic U.S. Court Cases, 1690–1990: An Encyclopedia. New York, NY: Garland Publishing. pp. 122–124. ISBN   978-0-8240-4430-5.
  8. ↑ Benton, T. Hart (2016). "Congressional and Presidential Electoral Reform after Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission" (PDF). Loyola Law Review. 62: 155–188.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.