Final answer:
The Warren Court addressed the issue of reapportionment by establishing the one-person-one-vote principle in Reynolds v. Simms, aligning with the equal representation ethos and supporting the liberal reforms of the Johnson administration.
Step-by-step explanation:
How the Warren Court Addressed Reapportionment
The Warren Court tackled the issue of reapportionment through a series of landmark decisions that reshaped the political landscape of the United States. Particularly, in Reynolds v. Simms (1964), the Court established the principle of one-person-one-vote, mandating that electoral districts must be equalized in terms of population to ensure fair representation. This decision forced many states to redraw their districts, significantly impacting the way legislators were elected and how their constituencies were represented. Furthermore, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Supreme Court expanded civil rights and liberties, supporting President Johnson's liberal Great Society reforms during a time when the expansion of federal powers, particularly in relation to civil rights, was a critical issue.
Overall, the Warren Court's decisions on reapportionment echoed the spirit of the Johnson administration, facilitating equal representation in the electoral system and aligning with the broader political movement towards civil rights and social justice.