Delaware v. New York (1966)

My best college professor drilled into my head the idea that you have to look at what didn't happen as well as what happened to understand something fully. This is what I'm doing in researching the Bayh Subcommittee. Let me give you an example:

In 1966, Delaware filed an action in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction arguing that the Electoral College was unconstitutional. Electoral College reform was in the air. President Johnson asked Congress to consider an Article V amendment. The Bayh Subcommittee held hearings, and Senator Bayh expressed support for the lawsuit. Delaware was candid in explaining its goal:

Although the Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, it is recognized that ultimate correction of the conditions complained of may best be achieved by Constitutional Amendment. But unless this Court sees fit to “open the door,” and point the way through equitable interim relief, as it did in the field of legislative apportionment, no Constitutional Amendment aimed at fair and just reform of the Electoral College is likely to come from entrenched political interests which are satisfied with a voting device that suits their purposes. No other remedy is available to aid citizens whose votes in presidential elections are diluted, debased and misappropriated through the state unit system and its risks of miscarriage of the popular choice will continue indefinitely, unless this Court grant relief. 

Now this was directed at the Warren Court, which might explain why Delaware thought they could get somewhere. The Court rejected the complaint without comment. I'll have to did into the papers of the Justices to see what, if anything, was said on this internally.