FACTS:

The appellants represent the counties in which they reside and are allegedly
qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly of Tennessee. They filed a
suit in the Federal District Court in Tennessee, to redress the deprivation of their
federal constitutional rights by legislation with regard to the voting of
representatives in the General Assembly. The appellants alleges that the 1901
Apportionment Act, even as of the time of its passage, made no apportionment of
Representatives and Senators in accordance with the constitutional formula, but
instead apportioned representatives in the Senate and House without reference to
any logical or reasonable formula whatever, resulting to the debasement of their
votes. They are thus denied of the equal protection of the laws assured to them by
the Fourth Amendment. They seek for the judgment that the 1901 statute be
declared unconstitutional and an injunction restraining further elections under it.
ISSUES:
1. Does the court have jurisdiction of the subject matter of legislative
apportionment?
2. Do the appellants have the standing to maintain the suit?
3. Does the subject matter present a nonjusticiable political question?
HELD:
1. Yes, the court has jurisdiction.
Since the complaint plainly sets forth a case arising under the Constitution, the
subject matter is within the federal judicial power defined in Art. III, 2, and so
within the power of Congress to assign to the jurisdiction of the District Courts.
Congress has exercised that power in 28 U.S.C. 1343(3):
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action
authorized by law to be commenced by any person . . . [t]o redress the
deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the
Constitution of the United States. . ."
2. Yes, they have the legal standing.
"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to
claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury."
3. The subject matter is justiciable, meaning, the appellants are entitled to a
trial and decision. The mere fact that the suit seeks protection of a political
right does not mean it presents a political question. The right asserted is
within the reach of judicial protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Subject matters that involve a political question:
There is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a
coordinate political department
There is a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for
resolving it

The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind

clearly for nonjudicial discretion
The impossibility of a courts undertaking independent resolution without
expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an
unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already
made
There is an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision
already made
The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by
various departments on one question.

4. Reversed and Remanded

The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.