Wesberry v. Vandiver, 206 F. Supp. 276 (N.D. Ga. 1962), prob. juris. noted, 374U.S. 802 (1963).
Holding
The Constitution requires that members of the House of Representatives be selected by districts composed, as nearly as is practicable, of equal population.
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Wesberry v. Sanders
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 JusticeHugo 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 representing the state at large.
No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.
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.[2]
Dissentedit
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.[2]
Reynolds v. Sims, 377U.S. 533 (1964): Districts in State Legislatures must be approximately equal in population.
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478U.S. 30 (1986): 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."
^"Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), at 17-18". Justia US Supreme Court Center. February 17, 1964. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
^ abCongressional Districting – United States Constitution
Further readingedit
Carpenter, Richard V. (1964), "Wesberry v. Sanders: A Case of Oversimplification", Villanova Law Review, 9: 415.
Weiss, Jonathan (1964), "An Analysis of Wesberry v. Sanders", Southern California Law Review, 8: 67.
External linksedit
Text of Wesberry v. Sanders, 376U.S. 1 (1964) is available from:FindlawJustiaLibrary of Congress
February 15, 2024
wesberry, sanders, 1964, landmark, supreme, court, case, which, court, ruled, that, districts, united, states, house, representatives, must, approximately, equal, population, along, with, baker, carr, 1962, reynolds, sims, 1964, part, series, warren, court, ca. 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 Wesberry v SandersSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued November 18 1963Decided February 17 1964Full case nameJames P Wesberry Jr et al v Carl E Sanders et al Citations376 U S 1 more 84 S Ct 526 11 L Ed 2d 481Case historyPriorWesberry v Vandiver 206 F Supp 276 N D Ga 1962 prob juris noted 374 U S 802 1963 HoldingThe Constitution requires that members of the House of Representatives be selected by districts composed as nearly as is practicable of equal population Court membershipChief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black William O DouglasTom C Clark John M Harlan IIWilliam J Brennan Jr Potter StewartByron White Arthur GoldbergCase opinionsMajorityBlack joined by Warren Douglas Brennan White GoldbergConcur dissentClarkDissentHarlan joined by Stewart in part Laws appliedU S Const art I 2 This case overturned a previous ruling or rulingsColegrove v Green 328 U S 549 1946 Wikisource has original text related to this article Wesberry v Sanders 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 representing the state at large Contents 1 Decision 2 Dissent 3 See also 4 References 5 Further reading 6 External linksDecision editNo right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which as good citizens we must live Other rights even the most basic are illusory if the right to vote is undermined Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right Justice Hugo Black on the right to vote as the foundation of democracy in Wesberry v Sanders 1964 1 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 2 Dissent editWriting 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 2 See also editBaker v Carr 369 U S 186 1962 Redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question thus enabling federal courts to hear redistricting cases Reynolds v Sims 377 U S 533 1964 Districts in State Legislatures must be approximately equal in population Thornburg v Gingles 478 U S 30 1986 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 575 U S 2015 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 VoteReferences edit Wesberry v Sanders 376 U S 1 1964 at 17 18 Justia US Supreme Court Center February 17 1964 Retrieved January 5 2021 a b Congressional Districting United States ConstitutionFurther reading editCarpenter Richard V 1964 Wesberry v Sanders A Case of Oversimplification Villanova Law Review 9 415 Weiss Jonathan 1964 An Analysis of Wesberry v Sanders Southern California Law Review 8 67 External links editText of Wesberry v Sanders 376 U S 1 1964 is available from Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Wesberry v Sanders amp oldid 1198225296, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
