Two changes in the personnel of the United States Supreme Court occurred during the 1956 Term. Justice Sherman Minton, appointed by President Truman in 1949, retired on October 15, 1956, at the age of sixty-five, for reasons of health. Prior to his appointment to the Court, Justice Minton had served as U. S. Senator from Indiana and had spent eight years on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. To take his place President Eisenhower gave a recess appointment to William Joseph Brennan, Jr., who took the oath of office on October 16, at the age of fifty. A native of Newark and a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and of the Harvard Law School, he had served by appointment in 1949 on the New Jersey Superior Court, was advanced to the Appellate Division in 1950, and was appointed to the state Supreme Court in 1952. Justice Brennan was a Democrat, a Catholic, (the first since Justice Frank Murphy, who died in 1949), and the son of an Irish immigrant; and his appointment was announced just three weeks before the presidential election of 1956.

Many modern theorists of political parties see the party system not only as an adjunct to democracy but as a necessary precondition of it. In an almost complete reversal of classical doctrine, these theorists argue that competition between parties, preferably two, is the very life blood of democracy. This paper attempts an evaluation of this thesis, which may be called the “organizational theory” of democracy, as it applies to conditions in three counties in a southern state.

Three cases do not warrant conclusions extrapolated beyond our data, for any truly rigorous evaluation would require more cases in more different types of situations. This limitation particularly holds for extrapolations to national governments, since we can not assume that parties operate similarly at all levels. However, the choice of three units of local government makes possible a more intensive coverage of the events, men and patterns of politics. Furthermore, they are sufficient for present purposes, for if the organizational theory is to be accepted as completely explanatory, it should apply to all cases. Otherwise it must be viewed as partial, limited to special cases, in need of further elaboration and refinement, or, at worst, incorrect.