Lexplug logoLexplug

Wesberry v. Sanders

Supreme Court of United States
376 U.S. 1 (1964)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires that congressional districts within a state be drawn with populations that are as nearly equal as is practicable. This establishes the constitutional principle of "one person, one vote" for elections to the U.S. House of Representatives.


Facts:

  • In 1931, the Georgia General Assembly passed a statute that established the state's ten congressional districts.
  • Appellants were citizens and qualified voters residing in Fulton County, Georgia, which was part of the Fifth Congressional District.
  • According to the 1960 census, the population of the Fifth District was 823,680.
  • The average population for Georgia's ten congressional districts was 394,312.
  • The Ninth District had a population of only 272,154, less than one-third of the Fifth District's population.
  • This significant population disparity meant that the vote of a citizen in the Fifth District had substantially less weight than the vote of a citizen in other districts, particularly the Ninth.

Procedural Posture:

  • Appellants, citizens and voters from Georgia's Fifth Congressional District, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Governor and Secretary of State of Georgia.
  • The complaint sought a declaration that Georgia's 1931 congressional apportionment statute was unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent future elections under it.
  • A three-judge District Court was convened to hear the case.
  • The District Court found that the population of the Fifth District was 'grossly out of balance' with the other nine districts.
  • Despite its findings, a majority of the District Court dismissed the complaint for 'want of equity,' viewing the issue as a nonjusticiable political question.
  • The appellants appealed the dismissal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.

Locked

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 a state's congressional apportionment statute that creates districts with grossly unequal populations violate Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that Representatives be chosen 'by the People of the several States'?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Black

Yes. A state apportionment statute that results in congressional districts of grossly unequal populations is unconstitutional because the command of Article I, Section 2, that Representatives be chosen 'by the People of the several States' means that as nearly as is practicable, one person's vote in a congressional election must be worth as much as another's. The Court reasoned that the history of the Constitutional Convention demonstrated the Framers' intent to establish equal representation for equal numbers of people as the fundamental goal for the House of Representatives, rejecting systems like Great Britain's 'rotten boroughs.' The right to vote is too precious to be diluted by the creation of districts with widely varied populations. Citing its recent decision in Baker v. Carr, the Court affirmed that challenges to apportionment schemes are justiciable and not 'political questions' beyond the Court's reach.


Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan

No. The Constitution does not require that congressional districts be equal in population, and this decision usurps a power vested exclusively in the state legislatures and Congress. Justice Harlan argued that the majority misinterprets Article I, Section 2, which only concerns the right to vote for representatives, not the composition of districts. The proper constitutional provision is Article I, Section 4, which explicitly grants states the power to prescribe the 'Times, Places and Manner' of holding elections, subject to the supervisory power of Congress. Congress historically required equal districts but deliberately abandoned that requirement in 1929, leaving the matter to the states. By creating a new constitutional right 'manufactured out of whole cloth,' the Court enters the 'political thicket' and undermines the separation of powers.


Concurring - Mr. Justice Clark

Yes, the apportionment scheme is unconstitutional, but for different reasons than the majority states. While disagreeing with the majority that Article I, Section 2 mandates the 'one person, one vote' principle for congressional elections, Justice Clark agreed that malapportionment claims are justiciable and that Georgia's scheme is unconstitutional. He argued that the proper standard for evaluating the Georgia statute is the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not Article I, Section 2. The gross population disparity among Georgia's districts violates the Equal Protection Clause by impermissibly discriminating against certain voters. Therefore, while reaching the same conclusion as the majority that the scheme is unconstitutional, he based his reasoning on different constitutional grounds.



Analysis:

This landmark decision established the 'one person, one vote' standard for congressional districting, profoundly reshaping the U.S. political landscape. By mandating population equality among districts, Wesberry shifted political power from sparsely populated rural areas to more populous urban and suburban centers, which had long been underrepresented. Building on Baker v. Carr, this case solidified the judiciary's role in overseeing the 'political thicket' of redistricting, ensuring that the fundamental principle of representative democracy—equal representation for equal numbers of people—is enforced. The ruling invalidated the congressional districting maps of numerous states and continues to be the foundational precedent for all modern congressional redistricting litigation.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"