MARSHALL et al. v. HARE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.
No. 962.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Theodore Sachs for appellants.
Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General of Michigan, Stanton S. Faville, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and James R. Ramsey and Russell A. Searl, Assistant Attorneys General, for Hare et al.; and Edmund E. Shepherd and R. William Rogers for Beadle et al., appellees.
Per Curiam.
The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U. S. 713. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment because the Michigan system of legislative apportionment is clearly a rational one and clearly does not frustrate effective majority rule.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.
case did not arise on cert or cert not granted federal court conflict federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question putative conflict conflict between federal court and state court state court conflict federal court confusion or uncertainty state court confusion or uncertainty federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty to resolve important or significant question to resolve question presented no reason given other reason