Reynolds v. Sims/Concurrence Stewart

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Reynolds v. Sims
Concurring Opinion by Potter Stewart
80170Reynolds v. Sims — Concurring OpinionPotter Stewart
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinions
Dissenting Opinion


All of the parties have agreed with the District Court's finding that legislative inaction for some 60 years, in the face of growth and shifts in population, has converted Alabama's legislative apportionment plan enacted in 1901 into one completely lacking in rationality. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, post, p. 744, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court holding that this apportionment violated the Equal Protection Clause.

I also agree with the Court that it was proper for the District Court, in framing a remedy, to adhere as closely [p589] as practicable to the apportionments approved by the representatives of the people of Alabama, and to afford the State of Alabama full opportunity, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Constitution, to devise its own system of legislative apportionment.