Wesberry v. Sanders
 | |
| Wesberry v. 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 case was brought by James P. Wesberry, Jr., against Georgia Governor Carl Sanders. Wesberry alleged that the population of the Georgia's Fifth Congressional District, his home district, was two 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 United States Constitution. On February 17, 1964, the court ruled 6-3 in favor of Wesberry, finding that congressional districts must have nearly equal populations in order to ensure that "as nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."[1][2]
Background
- See also: Redistricting in Georgia
Case history
According to the 1960 United States Census, the population of Georgia's 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 impact of his vote relative to Georgians in less populous districts, as each district, regardless of population, elects a single representative. Wesberry filed suit, and the case was brought before a three-judge federal district court panel. The district court dismissed the complaint, citing Colegrove v. Green, a 1946 case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that "challenges to apportionment of congressional districts raised only 'political' questions, which were not justiciable." The district 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][2][3]
| “ | Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote?[4] | ” |
Decision
On February 17, 1964, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 in favor of Wesberry, finding that congressional districts must have nearly equal populations in order to ensure that "as nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as 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.e., 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 opinion:[3]
| “ | We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, § 2 that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" means that, as nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. It would be extraordinary to suggest that, in such statewide elections, the votes of inhabitants of some parts of a State, 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 populous parts of the State, for example, the Fifth 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 in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected "by the People," a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, § 2, 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 basis of the House of Representatives.[4] | ” |
| —Hugo Black | ||
Harlan dissented, arguing that "the court is not simply undertaking to exercise a power which the Constitution reserves to the Congress; it is also overruling congressional judgment." Harlan wrote the following in his opinion:[3]
| “ | I had not expected to witness the day when the Supreme Court of the United States would render a decision which casts grave doubt on the constitutionality of the composition of the House 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 "as nearly as 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 party.[3]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oyez, "Wesberry v. Sanders," accessed December 8, 2017
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Rose Institute of State and Local Government, Claremont McKenna College, "Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)," accessed December 8, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "Wesberry v. Sanders: Opinion of Black, H." February 17, 1964
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
