Courts can act on apportionment only where a prior legal standard supplies criteria

Evidence

The courts of the various states, in contrast with the federal courts, have frequently granted relief in actions by voters against state election officials to challenge apportionments. But these have been almost invariably cases in which the applicable state constitution contained relatively specific requirements, such as that districts be of approximately equal population, or be compact in shape or made up of contiguous territory, or follow town boundaries. … Does all this suggest that a requisite of effective participation by the courts in problems of apportionment is the laying down by same superior atthority of definite criteria of judgment? — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 3682

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes adjudicative from legislative questions by the presence of criteria a court can apply — ties to ch37 institutional design.
• XREF: connects to: Polycentric problems with interdependent judgments resist adjudication — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3342; Common law judges may only decide the case before them — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 227; Courts should not adjudicate malapportionment despite admitting its unfairness — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3674

Broader Connections

• Courts should not adjudicate malapportionment despite admitting its unfairness #exemplifies (0.88) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 3674
• Common law judges may only decide the case before them #expands (0.85) — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 227