Summary

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren Reynolds v. Sims — Opinion of the Court

We find that each of the legislative acts, when considered as a whole, is so obviously discriminatory, arbitrary and irrational that it becomes unnecessary to pursue a detailed development of each of the relevant factors of the [federal constitutional] test. [n15] The Court stated that the apportionment of one senator to each county, under the proposed constitutional amendment, would "make the discrimination in the Senate even more invidious than at present."
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren Reynolds v. Sims — Opinion of the Court

The Court regarded the senatorial apportionment provided in the Crawford-Webb Act as "a step in the right direction, but an extremely short step," and but a "slight improvement over the present system of representation." [n21] The net effect of combining a few of the less populous counties into two-county districts and splitting up several of the larger districts into smaller ones would be merely to increase the minority which would be represented by a majority of the members of the Senate from 25.1% to only 27.6% of the State's population.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren Reynolds v. Sims — Opinion of the Court

In the early 19th century, certain of the seaboard cities in some of the Eastern and Southern States possessed and struggled to retain legislative representation disproportionate to population, and bitterly opposed according additional representation to the growing inland areas. Conceivably, in some future time, urban areas might again be in a situation of attempting to acquire or retain legislative representation in excess of that to which, on a population basis, they are entitled.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature