ABSTRACT
The apportionment and reapportionment of state legislatures has long been held to be exclusively a state responsibility, and the national government historically has consistently pursued a hands-off policy. In particular, the federal courts have refused to accept jurisdiction over cases involving legislative apportionment. In 1962, however, the Supreme Court changed this time-honored position dramatically by taking judicial cognizance of Tennessee case involving apportionment. The significance of legislative apportionment for the cities is great. Reapportionment is rightly understood to be primarily a rural-urban issue; it was so identified by the Supreme Court in a passage from the recent Alabama case. Nowhere does rural determination to cling to control manifest itself more nakedly than in connection with state legislative apportionment. In the evolution of a system of administration which most observers regarded as a perversion of democratic intention, two other institutions played highly significant roles. On the one hand, many agencies enjoyed constitutional status, and so were beyond reach by normal action.
