Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionLegislative ApportionmentFourteenth AmendmentEqual Protection Clauseone person one votestate legislative apportionmentbicameral legislature

Facts

Colorado voters adopted Amendment No. 7 in 1962, which created a 39-member Senate and 65-member House, with the House to be divided into districts as nearly equal in population as possible but the Senate largely preserving the prior county-based allocation with only limited changes. Under that senatorial scheme, counties containing only 33.2% of the State's population elected a majority of the Senate, and the maximum population-variance ratio among Senate districts was about 3.6-to-1. Denver and nearby metropolitan counties containing about half the State's population received only 14 of 39 senators, and the Denver, Pueblo, and Colorado Springs metropolitan areas containing about 68% of the population elected only 20 of 39 senators. The district court upheld the plan, relying in part on geography and other nonpopulation factors and on the fact that Colorado voters had approved Amendment No. 7 in a referendum.

Issue

Whether Colorado's legislative apportionment scheme adopted by popular referendum violated the Equal Protection Clause because the Senate was not apportioned substantially on a population basis. Also, whether the plan's voter approval and the availability of initiative and referendum supplied a constitutionally sufficient justification for the disparities.

Rule

Under the Equal Protection Clause, both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned substantially on a population basis. A legislative apportionment plan does not gain federal constitutional validity because it was approved by the electorate, and the existence of initiative or referendum justifies only a temporary equitable stay while political remedies are pursued or pending proposals are submitted.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A state with a bicameral legislature redraws only its lower chamber after the census. The lower chamber now has districts with very small population deviations, but in the upper chamber counties containing 34% of the state's population elect a majority of senators because each rural county is guaranteed one senate seat.

Voters from Milwaukee sue under the Equal Protection Clause. What is the strongest argument for finding the plan unconstitutional?

Explanation. The majority held that the Equal Protection Clause requires both houses of a bicameral state legislature to be apportioned substantially on a population basis. A state cannot save a seriously malapportioned senate by pointing to a population-based house. The federal-Senate analogy was rejected, and substantial departures cannot be justified merely by county representation or other nonpopulation interests.