Gray v. Sanders
372 U.S. 368 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that in a statewide election, every qualified voter's vote must be counted equally to every other voter's vote in the state. This principle, known as 'one person, one vote,' prohibits states from using systems that weight votes based on geographic location.
Facts:
- Georgia used a 'county unit' system to determine the winner of statewide primary elections for offices like U.S. Senator and Governor.
- Under this system, the candidate who won the popular vote in a county received all of that county's 'unit votes.'
- The number of unit votes per county was based on its representation in the state's lower house, which was not proportional to population, resulting in significant disparities.
- James O. Sanders, a qualified voter, resided in Fulton County, the most populous county in Georgia.
- In Fulton County, one unit vote represented 92,721 residents, while in Echols County, the least populous county, one unit vote represented only 938 residents.
- This disparity meant that a single vote in Echols County had the same weight as 99 votes in Fulton County in a statewide primary.
- During the litigation, Georgia amended the law, but the new system retained a 'bracket system' that continued to give disproportionate weight to less populated counties.
- Under the amended system, counties with one-third of the state's total population could control a majority of the county unit votes.
Procedural Posture:
- James O. Sanders, a voter from Fulton County, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court against Georgia state officials.
- A three-judge federal District Court was convened to hear the case.
- The District Court held that the county unit system violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The District Court issued an injunction, not against the system entirely, but against using any version of it where the disparity against any county was greater than the disparity that exists against any state in the federal electoral college system.
- The state officials, as appellants, appealed the District Court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Georgia's county unit system for tabulating votes in statewide primary elections, which gives more weight to votes from rural counties than urban counties, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Douglas
Yes, Georgia's county unit system violates the Equal Protection Clause. Once a geographical unit for an election is established, such as the entire state for a statewide election, the principle of political equality requires that every vote cast within that unit must be given equal weight. The court rejected analogies to the federal electoral college and legislative apportionment, stating those are distinct constitutional structures not applicable to how a state must count individual votes in a statewide contest. The court reasoned that there is no constitutional basis for weighting a vote differently based on where a person lives, just as it would be unconstitutional to weight votes based on race or sex. The core concept of political equality, from the Declaration of Independence to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments, means one person, one vote.
Dissenting - Justice Harlan
No, Georgia's county unit system does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The majority's 'one person, one vote' formula is a new-found principle that flies in the face of history and political reality. The Constitution itself, through the Electoral College and the structure of the Senate, embraces principles of representation not based purely on population. A State should have the power to assure a proper diffusion of political initiative between its thinly populated rural areas and its concentrated urban masses. It is rational for a state to conclude that its general welfare is best served by preventing the numerically superior electoral strength of urban voters from dominating statewide offices. The Court is unwisely entering a 'political thicket' and creating a standard of 'delusive exactness' not required by the Constitution.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
Yes, Georgia's county unit system violates the Equal Protection Clause. This case is straightforward because it involves a statewide election where officers are responsible to a statewide constituency. Within a single, given constituency, there can only be one constitutional rule: one voter, one vote. It is crucial to emphasize that this ruling does not involve or decide the validity of a state's apportionment of geographic constituencies for its legislative assembly. This decision is limited to the context of statewide elections.
Analysis:
Gray v. Sanders is a landmark decision that established the 'one person, one vote' principle as a constitutional requirement under the Equal Protection Clause for statewide elections. Coming just one year after Baker v. Carr opened the door to judicial review of electoral systems, this case applied the principle to vote counting, not just legislative apportionment. The decision invalidated systems that diluted the votes of urban citizens, significantly shifting political power in states with similar rural-weighting schemes. While the concurrence attempted to limit its scope, the powerful 'one person, one vote' slogan became the doctrinal foundation for the Court's subsequent reapportionment revolution in cases like Reynolds v. Sims.
Unlock the full brief for Gray v. Sanders