August 28, 1964

Reapportionment Is Contrary To Tradition

The controversy now raging over the Supreme Court's ruling that state legislatures should be "reapportioned" on a "one man, one vote" basis flies in the face of the very oldest of American traditions.

The court's argument is that BOTH houses of state legislature should be composed of representatives chosen from districts of equal size and by popular vote only. The supreme tribunal finds its constitutional support in the 14th Amendment which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" to all citizens.

Effect of the decision would be to increase the number of representatives from large areas and reduce the power of "rural minorities" in state government.

It is pointed out that in cities such as Cleveland, Akron and Columbus a state representative may represent 100,000 constituents — whereas some assemblymen from sparsely settled southern Ohio counties may represent less than half that number of citizens.

The state Senate of Ohio is already based on population. The lower house also is established on population EXCEPT that no COUNTY is denied less than ONE representative. This is similar to the U. S. House of Representatives where 435 Congressmen are elected from districts equalized every census as to population EXCEPT that no STATE can have less than ONE representative.

The reader, it is hoped, will bear with the emphasis we place on the few words above. The whole current hulla­balloo involves small shades of meaning which, though small, are fundamental.

The change in state governments now ordered by the Supreme Court is far reaching indeed. It radically alters several centuries of political practice. The roots of our present legislative system go back to the original Constitution, to the Colonies, to England and the Magna Carta.

The idea of two houses of law makers — one based on population, the second on property or other special interests -- is ancient. Experience has shown that laws coming from a single house tend to thwart national requirements in one or another area. Recognition of the need of both, long ago resulted in the establishment of two governing bodies — one to check or balance the other.

The question first became pertinent for citizens of the United States before the War For Independence was won. The Articles of Confederation which first attempted to regulate intercolony relations were clearly inadequate.

The Federal Convention of June 1787 finally addressed itself to organization of a strong national government and to drawing up a constitution for it. The conflict between "popular sovereignty" and "individual freedom" quickly became the subject of intense debate.  The more populous states thought the proposed national legislature should be elected by citizens, each having an equal vote.  This meant the three largest states would control the country.

The small states argued for the one-state, one vote arrangement that had prevailed in the Confederation.  Opponents pointed out that the three smallest states could block the will of the majority.

The matter was settled in what is now called the Great Compromise. This set up a two-house legislature for the national government similar to the system of government, already in common use in the colonies. Each state, regardless of size, is allowed two Senators; while the number of Representatives fluctuates according to 10-year census figures. Thus the Great Compromise was not a new idea at all, but only a continuation of a system already familiar.

The original arguments for a single house legislature were only attempts by the jealous colonies to carve out a special advantage in the new national system. When both sides were stalemated they sensibly carried forward that which was already at work successfully within the colonies.

As the colonies became states, and as new states were brought into the Union, the two-house legislature on the same model was adopted.

American government traditionally is based on checks and balances of two houses, each with some difference in its philosophical approach to public problems. To use identical criteria for each would be to give them the same outlook and deference to the same interests. We should think long and hard before we permit either popular majorities or organized minorities to gain the upper hand.

Ohio cities have not fared badly under the present state arrangement. They have grown tremendously. Money flows back from the state treasury generously (not to mention the federal treasury) for roads, slum clearance, education and a host of other services and improvements.

There is some contention that the cities do not receive a fair share of education aid. In our travels, however, we haven't found any small town or consolidated schools with facilities superior to those in metropolitan areas. On the contrary, despite their alleged financial advantage noncity schools are suffering from a money pinch. Very few "rural" schools offer such things as counseling, therapists, nurses, full time coaches, remedial classes.

The present cry for reapportionment is fanned by the so-called "northern liberal" elements of the Democrat Party in order to gain permanent control of the national government. Desirable as this may appear to be to fellow liberals, sober reflection should bring them to the realization that a one-party nation is dangerous and sooner or later will subordinate some legitimate interest of their own. No one finds himself on the side of angels in every case.

A one-sided legislature — whether liberal or conservative, radical or reactionary, moderate or progressive, Democrat or Republican — is precursor to one-sided politics.

We would agree that more representatives may be appropriate for metropolitan areas, but not at the expense of the small counties.

Let's correct the problem by expanding the system, not wrecking it. The Supreme Court's solution is like burning down the house to get rid of rats.

Author: Lindsey Williams