On Democracy's Doorstep--The Inside Story of How the Supreme Court Brought "One Person, One Vote" to the United States

April 14, 2014
The link between voting and democracy in the United States has most often been examined through efforts to expand the electorate. In the post-Revolution period this meant eliminating property qualifications for free white adult men, while after the Civil War the emphasis shifted to the universal suffrage campaigns of African-Americans and women that lasted well into the 20th century. Yet as historian Smith (Managing White Supremacy) ably demonstrates, beginning in the late 19th century, malapportionment—the uneven representation of constituents by lawmakers—became the most serious threat to political equality. Soon, many states determined representation according to area or district rather than (or sometimes in addition to) population figures. Malapportionment, yet another way for native-born whites to maintain power, became obvious after WWII and coincided with an upswing in civil rights activism. The remedy came through legal challenges via the Supreme Court during the 1960s; as the Court dismantled malapportionment in cases like Baker v. Carr, political drama kicked into high gear as opponents nearly triggered a constitutional crisis in their desperation to hold onto power. Though Smith takes a novel angle and writes with a light touch, it will appeal more to an academic audience. Illus.

Starred review from May 15, 2014
Smith (Managing White Supremacy: Race, Politics, and Citizenship in Jim Crow Virginia, 2002, etc.) uses the fight for "one person, one vote" to explain the workings of the Supreme Court.The book is invaluable for anyone who wishes to understand the court, especially those who aren't familiar with legal jargon. The author clearly explains the procedures that led up to and followed each case. It's not just three hours of presentation, a vote and opinions delivered; the nine justices and their clerks devote countless hours to each and every case. The cases brought to the Warren Court against state legislatures all concern disproportionate representation of place over population, with rural areas exerting more control than highly populated cities. Decennial reapportionment requirements were ignored, and the few controlled the many. The first and most cited decision was Colgrove v. Green (1946), in which the court denied its jurisdiction over state legislatures. It wasn't until 1959 in Baker v. Carr that the court accepted its role. In case after case, the court faced the decision of whether it could apply the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause or hide behind the 15th's right to vote despite race and other factors. The author takes us through five important cases of 1963 without legal droning or prolix explanations. Even after the court decision requiring "one person, one vote" for both houses of state legislatures, Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois attempted to pass resolutions against the ruling and even proposed a constitutional convention. Still, malapportionment's evil twin, gerrymandering, along with the current trend of "one dollar, one vote," often succeeds in tilting the balance of power.Smith gives us the knowledge that imparts the power to change and, more importantly, the hope that it can succeed.

COPYRIGHT(2014) Kirkus Reviews, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

July 1, 2014

Though the legal principle of "one person, one vote" seems, from our current vantage point, like a logical and necessary cornerstone of our democracy, it wasn't always so. Smith (Managing White Supremacy) tells the legal and political history of the struggle against the malapportionment in state legislatures that favored rural over urban voters. Smith's characterization of the reapportionment story is meticulous, lucid, and comprehensive. Though most of the book is dedicated to nuanced description of the 1960s Supreme Court decisions that led to the transformation of almost every state legislature, Smith does a wonderful job of framing this account with important historical information that allows readers to understand the political context of these important fights. VERDICT An excellent and approachable legal and political chronicle of one of the most important developments in American democracy. Though the writing is clear, light, and lacking legal jargon, academic audiences will most appreciate.--Rachel Bridgewater, Portland Community Coll. Lib., OR

Copyright 2014 Library Journal, LLC Used with permission.