From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Wesberry v. Sanders
Docket number: 22
Term: 1963-1964
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Important dates
Argument: Nov 18-19, 1963
Decided: February 17, 1964
Court membership
Master Justice Earl Warren • Hugo Black • William Douglas • Tom Clark • John Marshall Harlan • William Brennan • Potter Stewart • Byron White • Arthur Goldberg

Wesberry v. Sanders was a case decided by the Supreme Courtroom of the United States in 1964. The instance was brought past James P. Wesberry, Jr., against Georgia Governor Carl Sanders. Wesberry alleged that the population of the Georgia's 5th Congressional Commune, his home commune, was ii to three times larger than that of other districts in the state, thereby diluting the impact of his vote relative to other Georgia residents in violation of the U.s. Constitution. On February 17, 1964, the court ruled 6-three in favor of Wesberry, finding that congressional districts must accept nearly equal populations in order to ensure that "every bit nearly as is practicable, 1 man'south vote in a congressional ballot is to exist worth as much as another'southward."[1] [2]

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The instance: James P. Wesberry, Jr., the plaintiff, alleged that, because the population of his congressional district was two to iii times larger than that of other congressional districts in Georgia, the impact of his vote had been diluted relative to other state residents, violating the United States Constitution.

  • The result: "Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote?""[one]

  • The issue: The courtroom ruled 6-three in favor of Wesberry, finding that the population disparities between Georgia'south congressional districts violated the U.S. Constitution. The court held that "every bit virtually as is practicable, i person's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."

    • Groundwork

    Encounter also: Redistricting in Georgia

    Example history

    According to the 1960 United States Census, the population of Georgia'southward Fifth Congressional District, in which Wesberry resided, was 823,680. At that time, the average population of Georgia's 10 districts was 394,312. The population of the smallest, Georgia's Ninth Congressional District, was 272,154. This represented a 100.66 percent difference between the populations of the Fifth and Ninth districts. Wesberry alleged that this disparity diluted the bear on of his vote relative to Georgians in less populous districts, as each district, regardless of population, elects a single representative. Wesberry filed adapt, and the case was brought before a 3-judge federal district court console. The district court dismissed the complaint, citing Colegrove v. Green, a 1946 example in which the Supreme Court of the Us held that "challenges to apportionment of congressional districts raised only 'political' questions, which were not justiciable." The commune court decision was appealed the Supreme Court of the United States, which heard oral arguments November 18 and 19, 1963. The following question was presented to the court:[1] [ii] [iii]

    " Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote?[4] "

    Decision

    On Feb 17, 1964, the Supreme Courtroom of the U.s. ruled 6-three in favor of Wesberry, finding that congressional districts must have well-nigh equal populations in order to ensure that "as nearly as is practicable, ane human being's vote in a congressional election is to exist worth every bit much as another's." The court also held that cases involving malapportionment (i.e., a practice that prevents a constituency from having equal representation in government) are justiciable. (i.due east., subject to trial in a court of law) The majority comprised Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices Hugo Black, William Douglas, William Brennan, Byron White, and Arthur Goldberg. Black wrote the following in the court's majority stance:[3]

    " We agree that, construed in its historical context, the control of Art. I, § two that Representatives be chosen "past the People of the several States" ways that, as about as is practicable, one man'due south vote in a congressional election is to exist worth every bit much as another's. This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide ground, every bit was a widespread practise in the get-go fifty years of our Nation'due south history. It would be boggling to propose that, in such statewide elections, the votes of inhabitants of some parts of a State, for instance, Georgia'due south thinly populated Ninth District, could be weighted at two or three times the value of the votes of people living in more than populous parts of the Land, for example, the 5th District around Atlanta. We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more than in one commune than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a Business firm of Representatives elected "by the People," a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, specially that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, § two, reveals that those who framed the Constitution meant that, no matter what the mechanics of an election, whether statewide or by districts, it was population which was to be the footing of the House of Representatives.[4] "
    —Hugo Blackness

    Harlan dissented, arguing that "the court is not only undertaking to exercise a power which the Constitution reserves to the Congress; it is also overruling congressional judgment." Harlan wrote the post-obit in his opinion:[3]

    " I had non expected to witness the day when the Supreme Court of the United states of america would render a decision which casts grave doubt on the constitutionality of the composition of the Business firm of Representatives. It is not an exaggeration to say that such is the effect of today's conclusion. The Court's belongings that the Constitution requires States to select Representatives either by elections at large or by elections in districts composed "as nearly equally is practicable" of equal population places in jeopardy the seats of almost all the members of the present House of Representatives.[4] "
    —John Marshall Harlan

    Stewart joined Harlan's dissent. Clark penned an opinion concurring in party with the majority and dissenting in political party.[three]

    See also

    • Redistricting in Georgia
    • Gerrymandering

    External links

    • Supreme Courtroom of the United States, "Wesberry v. Sanders: Opinion of Black, H." February 17, 1964

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ ane.0 one.ane ane.2 Oyez, "Wesberry v. Sanders," accessed December 8, 2017
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Rose Constitute of State and Local Government, Claremont McKenna College, "Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)," accessed December eight, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.i three.2 3.3 Supreme Court of the United states, "Wesberry v. Sanders: Opinion of Black, H." Feb 17, 1964
    4. ↑ iv.0 4.one 4.two Notation: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are owing to the original source.

    v•e

    Ballotpedia
    Virtually

    Overview • What people are saying • Back up Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Chore opportunities

    Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Ballot Production and Technology Strategy

    Communications: Megan Brownish • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski
    External Relations: Alison Prange • Sara Primal • Kari Berger • Hannah Nelson
    Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Lauren Dixon • Kelly Rindfleisch
    Policy: Christopher Nelson • Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Katharine Frey • Jimmy McAllister
    Research: Josh Altic, Managing Editor
    Tech: Matt Latourelle, Tech Managing director • Nathan Bingham • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Margaret Kearney • Joseph Sanchez

    Contributors: Scott Rasmussen
    Editorial

    Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Master • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams • Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Nicole Fisher • Juan García de Paredes • Sara Horton • Tyler Rex • Doug Kronaizl • Amee LaTour • David Luchs • Brittony Maag • Roneka Matheny • Andrew McNair • Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie White potato • Samantha Mail service • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Myj Saintyl • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Caitlin Vanden Boom • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora