The Maryland legislature recently
reapportioned both the House of Dele-
gates and the Senate on a population
basis as a result of the case of Maryland
Committee v. Tawes.2 This case and
the other reapportionment cases3 estab-
lished the constitutional principle that
both houses of all state legislatures must
be apportioned on the basis of popula-
tion. The cases were immediately and
universally recognized as instituting a
new epoch in state and national govern-
mental affairs. It is, of course, still far
too early to assess accurately the final
long-term impact of the decisions on
American governmental affairs, but this
does not preclude a comparison of the
requirements of these cases as to appor-
tionment with the historical practices of
the other various states. Indeed, an
examination of the historical practices
with respect to apportionment discloses
the invalidity of some of the more
prominent defenses advanced in favor
1 This article was prepared by John H.
Michener, Commission reporter for the Com-
mittee on the Legislative Department; Chief,
Appraisal Staff, Bureau of Health Insurance,
Social Security Administration; B.A., 1948,
University of Kansas; Ph.D., 1956, University
of California (Berkeley); LL.B., 1962, Uni-
versity of Maryland ; member of the Maryland
Bar.
The Commission expresses its thanks to Mr.
Michener for revising and updating this survey
which appeared originally in the maryland
law review, Vol. 25, Winter 1965, No. 1,
and to the maryland law review for per-
mission to use it.
2 377 U.S. 656 (1964).
3 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964);
WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633
( 1964) ; Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678 ( 1964) ;
Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695 (1964) ; and
Lucas v. Colo. Gen. Assembly, 377 U.S. 713
(1964).
|
of the apportionment practices over-
thrown by these cases. This is true, in
particular, of Maryland where the exist-
ing apportionment system was vigorously
defended on the basis of the "federal
analogy."4
THE COLONIAL PERIOD
Early Maryland history is inextricably
intertwined with the fortunes of the
Calverts. This association began in 1632
when Charles I granted George Calvert,
Lord Baltimore, the land lying between
the Potomac and the fortieth parallel.
The charter, signed after George Gal-
vert's death, granted to the proprietor:
". . . free, full, and absolute power
... to ordain, make, and enact laws
... of and with the advice, assent, and
approbation of the free-men of the
same province, or the greater part of
them, or of their delegates or depu-
ties, whom we will shall be called
together for the framing of laws,
when, and as often as need shall re-
quire, by the aforesaid now Baron of
Baltimore. . . ."5
Acting under this charter, Cecilius Cal-
vert, George Calvert' s son, sent a group
of immigrants who colonized Saint
Mary's in, 1634. It will be noted that
this charter did not provide that the
freemen would initiate laws but only
that they were to ratify legislation pro-
posed by the proprietor.6
4 See 32 U.S.L. W. 3191 (Nov. 26, 1963).
5 md. charter art. VII (1632).
6 The immediate conflict between the free-
men and the proprietor over their relative
roles in lawmaking, ending with full legislative
powers vested in the assembly, has been
chronicled earlier. See Everstine, The Estab-
lishment of Legislative Power in Maryland,
12 md, L. rev. 99 (1951).
131
|
