The latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the reapportionment cases will be greeted by legal and political commentators as an example of a further usurpation of states rights by the Supreme Court. It will be shown, however, that (1) the decision was required by the equal protection clause, (2) the decision was foreordained by use of the equal protection clause, (3) the Court was not imposing its own views of political theory when it upheld the civil liberties of individuals and limited the power of political majorities, and (4) the decision will not destroy initiative or local individuality but will permit a diversified development of new political forms within the constitutional mandate. The Court, therefore, did not establish equalitarian majoritarianism, nor did it stifle individuality and local initiative. The Court did its constitutional, conservative duty of protecting the individual liberties of each citizen and of guaranteeing that each citizen will have the same rights as every other citizen.
Wallace M. Rudolph,
The Reapportionment Cases: A Conservative Defense of Individual Rights,
43 Neb. L. Rev. 854
Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol43/iss4/10