In the case of Marshall et al. v. Hare, Secretary of State of Michigan, et al., 1963, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to Michigan's apportionment scheme for its state senate districts. The plaintiffs argued that this scheme violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights because it resulted in unequal representation due to population disparities among districts. However, the court dismissed these claims and upheld Michigan's districting plan as constitutional under Article IV Section 4 (the Guarantee Clause) which guarantees each state a republican form of government. The court reasoned that while there may be some inequality in representation due to population differences between urban and rural areas, this did not necessarily mean that the system was unconstitutional or undemocratic as long as all voters had an equal opportunity to influence elections within their respective districts. This decision affirmed states' rights to determine their own legislative district boundaries without federal interference unless there is clear evidence of discrimination or violation of individual voting rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Marshall et al. v. Hare, Secretary of State of Michigan, et al., Justice Harlan argued that the Court was overstepping its boundaries by intervening in a state's political process and determining how it should apportion its legislative districts. He believed this to be an issue best left to the states themselves or Congress rather than being decided upon by federal courts. Harlan also expressed concern about potential inconsistencies in future rulings if the Court continued on this path of interventionism into state politics and electoral processes. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s interpretation of Article I Section 2 as requiring population-based representation at both levels (state and national) instead arguing that it only applied to House Representatives not state legislatures.