C OMMENTATORS ON STATE POLICY have often implied that malapportionment seriously affects the policy choices of state legislatures. In the literature on state politics it is frequently argued that there are important policy differences between urban and rural constituencies and that malapportionment, by over-representing rural interests, grants them a real advantage in policy-making.' It is also frequently predicted that reapportionment on a population basis will bring about noticeable shifts in many state policies.2 Malapportionment of state legislatures has been successfully challenged on the grounds that it denies to the citizens equal protection of the laws.3 This challenge was essentially a normative one, stemming from deeply held values about political equality.4 The merits of of this type of challenge do not lend themselves to empirical verification. However, statements about the effect of malapportionment on public policy, and predictions about the policy consequences of reapportionment, can be tested empirically. Such tests, of course, in no way reflect upon the moral quality of the proposition "as nearly