us-supreme-court new-york-city fourteenth-amendment
Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris
<p>In 1989, <em>Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris</em> unanimously declared New York City’s Board of Estimate Unconstitutional, as it violated the “one man, one vote” principle derived form 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection standard.</p>

<p>The Board of Estimate made almost all municipal decisions, and was occupied by eight <em>ex oficio</em> members:</p>

<ul>
<li>The Mayor of New York City</li>
<li>The New York City Comptroller</li>
<li>The President of the New York City Council</li>
<li>The Borough President of the Bronx</li>
<li>The Borough President of Brooklyn</li>
<li>The Borough President of Manhattan</li>
<li>The Borough President of Queens</li>
<li>The Borough President of Staten Island</li>
</ul>

<p>The first three were elected in a city-wide election, and had 2 votes on the Board, while the Borough Presidents, elected by residents of their respective Borough’s, each held one vote on the Board.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court ruled the Board Unconstitutional because residents of Queens, the least populous Borough, had the same representation as the members of the most populous Borough, Brooklyn.</p>

<p>The problem, with this unanimous decision, is that this allegation simply isn’t true. As the three officers who held the most power (controlling 6 out of the 11 votes) were elected City-Wide. Therefore, the members of the more populous Borough, Brooklyn, would have more representation.</p>

<p>I don’t claim to smarter than the Supreme Court, so, what am I missing?</p>

<p>The Board of Estimates still gave small boroughs like Staten Island more representatives per voter than large boroughs like Manhattan. Therefore it violated the one man, one vote principal which is evaluated with respect to all representatives having votes in a body, not just those that hold a majority.</p>

<p>The analysis is to take all at large seats that don't violate the one man, one vote rule off the table and look at the fairness of the allocation of the remaining seats.</p>

<p>This was an easy case, not a hard one, for the U.S. Supreme Court. The leading case are:</p>

<p>First, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/369/186/case.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Baker v. Carr</em>, 369 U.S. 186</a> (1962) (holding that malapportionment claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were not exempt from judicial review under Article IV, Section 4, as the equal protection issue in this case was separate from any political questions). As Wikipedia explains (links to selected full text opinions added):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The "one person, one vote" doctrine, which requires electoral
  districts to be apportioned according to population, thus making each
  district roughly equal in population, was further cemented in the
  cases that followed <em>Baker v. Carr</em>, including <em>Gray v. Sanders</em>, 372
  U.S. 368 (1963) which concerned state county districts, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/533/case.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Reynolds v.
  Sims</em>, 377 U.S. 533</a> (1964) which concerned state legislature
  districts, <em>Wesberry v. Sanders</em>, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) which concerned
  U.S. Congressional districts and <em>Avery v. Midland County</em>, 390 U.S.
  474 (1968) which concerned local government districts, a decision
  which was upheld in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/688" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Board of Estimate of City of New York v.
  Morris</em></a>, 489 U.S. 688 (1989). <em>Evenwel v. Abbott</em> (2016) said
  states may use total population in drawing districts (as opposed to
  eligible voters).</p>
</blockquote>
