Appellant
Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Company
Appellee
State of Oregon
Appellant's Claim
That the state of Oregon was no longer a republican form of government, sinceit gave citizens the right to pass laws by initiative and referendum.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
E. S. Pillsbury
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
A. M. Crawford, Jackson H. Ralston
Justices for the Court
William Rufus Day, John Marshall Harlan I, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Evans Hughes, Joseph Rucker Lamar, Horace Harmon Lurton, Joseph McKenna, WillisVan Devanter, Edward Douglass White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
2 February 1912
Decision
The Court denied it had jurisdiction and dismissed the case.
Significance
Citing a clear precedent, the Court reaffirmed that it had no constitutionalauthority to decide a political issue, such as the validity of a state government. The Court's dismissal of Pacific States upheld a state's right to introduce initiative and referendum reforms.
In Democracy in America, the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville observed, "Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that isnot resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question." De Tocqueville's assertion, however, was too sweeping; the Supreme Court has found political questions it will not address. To preserve the separation of powers between thejudicial and legislative branches, the Court developed the "political question doctrine," which it has invoked in cases that are purely political.
The doctrine first clearly arose in Luther v. Borden (1848), a case concerning Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution. In the "Guarantee Clause," the federal government guarantees that each state will have a republican form of government. In Luther, two political factions in Rhode Island claimed to be the legitimate government of the state. The case asked the Courtto decide which one should be in power. The Court, however, denied it had jurisdiction. Deciding if a state had a republican government was a political question, one that had to be resolved by Congress. That reasoning was at the heart of the Court's decision in Pacific States as well.
Progressive Politics On Trial
In the early twentieth century, political and social reform was sweeping across America. The reformers, called Progressives, tried to ease the plight of immigrants and the poor, improve conditions in the workplace, and reduce the influence of large corporations on state and local politics. Progressive toolsfor political reform stressed direct democracy--giving more political powersto the voters--and included the initiative and the referendum. With the initiative, voters of a state could introduce new laws, bypassing the legislature. A referendum allowed citizens to accept or reject laws passed by the government. The use of the initiative and the referendum was popular in the Great Plains and Far West, and in 1902, Oregon amended its constitution to include these reform measures.
The reforms, however, were not popular with some companies, which were oftenthe target of laws passed through initiative and referendum. In Oregon, the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company disliked a law that levied a two percent tax on the profits of telegraph and telephone companies doing business in the state. Oregon voters had initiated the law in 1906; it went into effect the following year. Pacific States refused to pay the tax, and Oregon sued for its money. In court, the company cited Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution for its defense. By introducing the initiative and referendum, Pacific States claimed, Oregon ceased to have a republican government, which relies on elected representative to make laws. Oregon's courts upheld the state's tax, and Pacific States took its claim to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a unanimous decision, the Court dismissed Pacific States' case. In his decision, Chief Justice White referred heavily to the Court's decision in Luther. Deciding if a state government was republican was strictly a political issue that only Congress could determine. Pacific States would have had abetter chance, White said, if it had attacked the tax itself on constitutional grounds. But the suit had an "essentially political nature . . . [that] . .. is at once made manifest by the understanding that the assault which the contention here advanced makes is not on the tax as a tax, but on the state asa state. It is addressed to the framework and political character of the government by which the statute levying the tax was passed."
White noted the irony of using the Guarantee Clause as grounds for the case.By asking the Court to hear such a blatantly political question, the appellant was trying to blur the separation of judicial and legislative powers spelled out in the Constitution. Pacific States' case "rests upon the assumption that the states are to be guaranteed a government republican by destroying thevery existence of a government republican in form in the nation."
The Political Question Doctrine Since Pacific States
By strongly reaffirming the precedent set in Luther, the Court clearlyshowed it would not get involved in Guarantee Clause cases. But if cases involving a political question had other grounds, the Court would consider it. That happened in 1962, in Baker v. Carr. The case addressed political reapportionment--the redrawing of voting district boundaries--in Tennessee. Baker relied on both the Guarantee and Equal Establishment Clauses. Based on the Equal Establishment grounds, the Court decided the case.
Since Baker, the Court has decided other cases with political questionissues. Indeed, some legal scholars argue that many Supreme Court cases havesignificant political overtones, and the Court elects to hear them. The political question doctrine becomes a subjective way of avoiding political issuesthe Court finds too controversial or that might infringe on the constitutional responsibilities of the other branches of the government.
Related Cases
Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Company
Appellee
State of Oregon
Appellant's Claim
That the state of Oregon was no longer a republican form of government, sinceit gave citizens the right to pass laws by initiative and referendum.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
E. S. Pillsbury
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
A. M. Crawford, Jackson H. Ralston
Justices for the Court
William Rufus Day, John Marshall Harlan I, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Evans Hughes, Joseph Rucker Lamar, Horace Harmon Lurton, Joseph McKenna, WillisVan Devanter, Edward Douglass White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
2 February 1912
Decision
The Court denied it had jurisdiction and dismissed the case.
Significance
Citing a clear precedent, the Court reaffirmed that it had no constitutionalauthority to decide a political issue, such as the validity of a state government. The Court's dismissal of Pacific States upheld a state's right to introduce initiative and referendum reforms.
In Democracy in America, the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville observed, "Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that isnot resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question." De Tocqueville's assertion, however, was too sweeping; the Supreme Court has found political questions it will not address. To preserve the separation of powers between thejudicial and legislative branches, the Court developed the "political question doctrine," which it has invoked in cases that are purely political.
The doctrine first clearly arose in Luther v. Borden (1848), a case concerning Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution. In the "Guarantee Clause," the federal government guarantees that each state will have a republican form of government. In Luther, two political factions in Rhode Island claimed to be the legitimate government of the state. The case asked the Courtto decide which one should be in power. The Court, however, denied it had jurisdiction. Deciding if a state had a republican government was a political question, one that had to be resolved by Congress. That reasoning was at the heart of the Court's decision in Pacific States as well.
Progressive Politics On Trial
In the early twentieth century, political and social reform was sweeping across America. The reformers, called Progressives, tried to ease the plight of immigrants and the poor, improve conditions in the workplace, and reduce the influence of large corporations on state and local politics. Progressive toolsfor political reform stressed direct democracy--giving more political powersto the voters--and included the initiative and the referendum. With the initiative, voters of a state could introduce new laws, bypassing the legislature. A referendum allowed citizens to accept or reject laws passed by the government. The use of the initiative and the referendum was popular in the Great Plains and Far West, and in 1902, Oregon amended its constitution to include these reform measures.
The reforms, however, were not popular with some companies, which were oftenthe target of laws passed through initiative and referendum. In Oregon, the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company disliked a law that levied a two percent tax on the profits of telegraph and telephone companies doing business in the state. Oregon voters had initiated the law in 1906; it went into effect the following year. Pacific States refused to pay the tax, and Oregon sued for its money. In court, the company cited Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution for its defense. By introducing the initiative and referendum, Pacific States claimed, Oregon ceased to have a republican government, which relies on elected representative to make laws. Oregon's courts upheld the state's tax, and Pacific States took its claim to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a unanimous decision, the Court dismissed Pacific States' case. In his decision, Chief Justice White referred heavily to the Court's decision in Luther. Deciding if a state government was republican was strictly a political issue that only Congress could determine. Pacific States would have had abetter chance, White said, if it had attacked the tax itself on constitutional grounds. But the suit had an "essentially political nature . . . [that] . .. is at once made manifest by the understanding that the assault which the contention here advanced makes is not on the tax as a tax, but on the state asa state. It is addressed to the framework and political character of the government by which the statute levying the tax was passed."
White noted the irony of using the Guarantee Clause as grounds for the case.By asking the Court to hear such a blatantly political question, the appellant was trying to blur the separation of judicial and legislative powers spelled out in the Constitution. Pacific States' case "rests upon the assumption that the states are to be guaranteed a government republican by destroying thevery existence of a government republican in form in the nation."
The Political Question Doctrine Since Pacific States
By strongly reaffirming the precedent set in Luther, the Court clearlyshowed it would not get involved in Guarantee Clause cases. But if cases involving a political question had other grounds, the Court would consider it. That happened in 1962, in Baker v. Carr. The case addressed political reapportionment--the redrawing of voting district boundaries--in Tennessee. Baker relied on both the Guarantee and Equal Establishment Clauses. Based on the Equal Establishment grounds, the Court decided the case.
Since Baker, the Court has decided other cases with political questionissues. Indeed, some legal scholars argue that many Supreme Court cases havesignificant political overtones, and the Court elects to hear them. The political question doctrine becomes a subjective way of avoiding political issuesthe Court finds too controversial or that might infringe on the constitutional responsibilities of the other branches of the government.
Related Cases
- Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1848).
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
User Comments Add a comment…