Wesberry v. Sanders

''Wesberry v. Sanders'', 376 U.S. 1 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that districts in the United States House of Representatives must be approximately equal in population. Along with '' Baker v. Carr'' (1962) and '' Reynolds v. Sims'' (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of " one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies.

Article One of the United States Constitution requires members of the U.S. House of Representatives to be apportioned by population among the states, but it does not specify exactly how the representatives from each state should be elected. The case arose from a challenge to the unequal population of congressional districts in the state of Georgia.

In his majority opinion, which was joined by five other justices, Associate Justice Hugo Black held that Article One required that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's." The decision had a major impact on representation in the House, as many states had districts of unequal population, often to the detriment of urban voters. The United States Senate was unaffected by the decision since the Constitution explicitly grants each state two senators.

Decision

Writing for the Court majority in Wesberry, Justice Black argued that a reading of the debates of the Constitutional Convention demonstrated conclusively that the Framers had meant, in using the phrase “by the People,” to guarantee equality of representation in the election of Members of the House of Representatives.Congressional Districting – United States Constitution
/ref>

Dissent

Writing in dissent, Justice Harlan argued that the statements cited by Justice Black had uniformly been in the context of the Great Compromise. Justice Harlan further argued that the Convention debates were clear to the effect that Article I, § 4, had vested exclusive control over state districting practices in Congress and that the Court action overrode a congressional decision not to require equally populated districts.

See also

* '' Baker v. Carr'', : Redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question, thus enabling federal courts to hear redistricting cases.
* '' Reynolds v. Sims'', : Districts in State Legislatures must be approximately equal in population.
* '' Thornburg v. Gingles'', : State Legislative multimember district invalid where three criteria met such that "...a bloc voting majority must ''usually'' be able to defeat candidates supported by a politically cohesive, geographically insular minority group."
* '' Miller v. Johnson'', 515 U.S. 900 (1995):
* '' Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama,'' : Racial gerrymandering claims must be considered district-by-district, rather than by looking at the state as an undifferentiated whole.
* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 376
* One Person, One Vote

References

Further reading

*.
*.

External links

*

{{USRedistrictinglaw

United States equal protection case law
1964 in United States case law
United States electoral redistricting case law
United States One Person, One Vote Legal Doctrine
Congressional districts of Georgia (U.S. state)
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
Civil rights movement case law
United States Supreme Court cases