From Ballotpedia

Bound to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Wesberry five. Sanders
Docket number: 22
Term: 1963-1964
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Important dates
Argument: November 18-19, 1963
Decided: February 17, 1964
Court membership
Chief 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 Court of the United States in 1964. The instance was brought by James P. Wesberry, Jr., against Georgia Governor Carl Sanders. Wesberry alleged that the population of the Georgia'southward Fifth Congressional District, his home district, was two to 3 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 United states Constitution. On February 17, 1964, the courtroom ruled 6-three in favor of Wesberry, finding that congressional districts must take about equal populations in guild to ensure that "as well-nigh as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."[1] [two]

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The case: James P. Wesberry, Jr., the plaintiff, declared that, because the population of his congressional district was 2 to three 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 U.s.a. Constitution.

  • The effect: "Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or deprive citizens of the total do good of their right to vote?""[1]

  • The outcome: The courtroom ruled half dozen-three in favor of Wesberry, finding that the population disparities between Georgia's congressional districts violated the U.Due south. Constitution. The court held that "as nearly as is practicable, one person's vote in a congressional ballot is to exist worth as much every bit some other'south."

    • Background

    See also: Redistricting in Georgia

    Case history

    According to the 1960 United States Census, the population of Georgia'due south Fifth Congressional District, in which Wesberry resided, was 823,680. At that time, the average population of Georgia'south 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 betwixt the populations of the Fifth and Ninth districts. Wesberry alleged that this disparity diluted the impact of his vote relative to Georgians in less populous districts, equally each district, regardless of population, elects a single representative. Wesberry filed suit, and the case was brought before a 3-estimate federal commune court panel. The district courtroom dismissed the complaint, citing Colegrove 5. Green, a 1946 case in which the Supreme Court of the U.s.a. held that "challenges to apportionment of congressional districts raised but 'political' questions, which were not justiciable." The commune court decision was appealed the Supreme Court of the U.s., which heard oral arguments Nov eighteen and 19, 1963. The following question was presented to the court:[one] [2] [3]

    " Did Georgia'due south 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 United states ruled half dozen-3 in favor of Wesberry, finding that congressional districts must have nearly equal populations in order to ensure that "as most as is practicable, 1 man'due south vote in a congressional election is to exist worth as much as another'due south." The courtroom also held that cases involving malapportionment (i.east., a practise 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 Primary Justice Earl Warren and Acquaintance Justices Hugo Black, William Douglas, William Brennan, Byron White, and Arthur Goldberg. Black wrote the following in the courtroom'south majority opinion:[3]

    " We concur that, construed in its historical context, the control of Art. I, § 2 that Representatives be called "by the People of the several States" means that, as nearly every bit is practicable, 1 homo's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as some other's. This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide footing, as was a widespread practise in the start 50 years of our Nation's history. Information technology would be extraordinary to suggest that, in such statewide elections, the votes of inhabitants of some parts of a Country, for example, Georgia's 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 State, for instance, the Fifth District effectually Atlanta. We do non believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the aforementioned 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 in one district than in some other would not only run counter to our cardinal ideas of autonomous government, it would cast aside the principle of a Business firm of Representatives elected "past the People," a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, specially that office of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, § ii, reveals that those who framed the Constitution meant that, no matter what the mechanics of an election, whether statewide or past districts, it was population which was to be the ground of the Firm of Representatives.[four] "
    —Hugo Blackness

    Harlan dissented, arguing that "the court is not simply undertaking to exercise a ability which the Constitution reserves to the Congress; it is also overruling congressional judgment." Harlan wrote the following in his opinion:[iii]

    " I had not expected to witness the day when the Supreme Court of the Usa would render a decision which casts grave doubtfulness on the constitutionality of the limerick of the Business firm of Representatives. It is not an exaggeration to say that such is the effect of today's decision. The Court's holding that the Constitution requires States to select Representatives either by elections at large or by elections in districts composed "every bit almost as is practicable" of equal population places in jeopardy the seats of most all the members of the present Firm of Representatives.[4] "
    —John Marshall Harlan

    Stewart joined Harlan's dissent. Clark penned an opinion concurring in party with the bulk and dissenting in party.[3]

    See also

    • Redistricting in Georgia
    • Gerrymandering

    External links

    • Supreme Court of the Us, "Wesberry five. Sanders: Stance of Blackness, H." Feb 17, 1964

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ one.0 1.ane 1.two Oyez, "Wesberry v. Sanders," accessed December viii, 2017
    2. ↑ ii.0 two.1 Rose Institute of State and Local Government, Claremont McKenna College, "Wesberry five. Sanders (1964)," accessed December viii, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.ane three.2 3.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "Wesberry v. Sanders: Opinion of Black, H." Feb 17, 1964
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.ane iv.2 Annotation: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are owing to the original source.

    v•e

    Ballotpedia
    Well-nigh

    Overview • What people are proverb • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

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

    Communications: Alison Graves • Megan Brown • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski
    External Relations: Alison Prange • Sara Key • 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 Manager • Nathan Bingham • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Margaret Kearney • Joseph Sanchez

    Contributors: Scott Rasmussen
    Editorial

    Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Principal • 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 King • Doug Kronaizl • Amee LaTour • David Luchs • Brittony Maag • Roneka Matheny • Andrew McNair • Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Samantha Post • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Myj Saintyl • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Caitlin Vanden Boom • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora