point is correct although court case cited is incorrect....
SC ruled in *Baker v Carr* (1962) that reapportionent of Tennessee House of Representatives was judicial issue (a 1946 court had refused to act on apportionment question in *Colegrove v Green* on grounds that it was 'political question')...Baker decision eventually forced all states to reapportion lower houses and adhere to principle of equal numbers of people (if memory serves, 3% plus or minus is allowed) in all legislative districts...ruling did not, however, clearly establish whether requirements for equal representation applied to both houses...
2 years later, in *Reynolds v Sims* (1964), SC applied principle to state senates as well as state lower houses, overturning Alabama's method of allocating each county a single seat in state senate... number of states apportioned upper houses in this manner, justifying practice via analogy to US Senate...SC rejected analogy on grounds that while states, as sovereign political units, had a right to equal representation in the US Senate under US Constitution, counties (and other local gov'ts) did not have such status (US Constitution makes no reference to local gov't) and, therefore, had no claim to equal representation in state senates...
impact of so-called reapportionment decisions was to shift state legislative attention to metropolitan areas, increase state appropriations to local gov'ts, and help increase black representation in state legislatures even as suburban representation increased more than did urban...
SC required congressional districts to be approximately equal in population in *Wesberry v Sanders* (1964), a Georgia case...
Michael Hoover