Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)
Chief Justice: Earl Warren (1953-1969)
Issue/Topic
Fundamental Rights Under Due Process and Equal Protection, The Right to Vote,
Dilution of the Right to Vote
II. Background and Facts of the Case
James Wesberry, Jr., a constituent of the Fifth Congressional District of George,
filed a lawsuit against the Governor of Georgia, Carl Sanders. Wesberry
protested against Georgia’s apportionment lines, created by the 1931 Georgia
apportionment statute. He disagreed with the lines because the Fifth District in
which he lived had a population of two to three times more than any other
district. Since each area can only appoint one Congress official, Wesberry felt that
his vote did not carry out as much weight compared to the voters who lived in
other districts.
III. The Issue for the Court
The court is trying to figure out if Georgia’s congressional districts are violating
the Fourteenth Amendment by unequally distributing the population of each
district, making the votes of some more important and more influential than
others.
IV. Arguments
Wesberry (plaintiff) claimed that the apportionments in the state of Georgia
lessened his right to vote compared to other residents, and put into question
whether the residents in the Fifth Congressional District had their Fourteenth
Amendment rights violated. This followed with the argument that the districts
denied the citizens the full benefit of the right to vote.
Governor Carl E. Sanders’ argument was that there is no way to create
mathematical precision when apportioning districts.
Opinion: The right to vote is such a prized privilege that it should never be
jeopardized or lessened by any outside force, just the force of that individual.
Also, the difference in population number compared to other districts is so large
that mathematical precision should not be necessary, just fair estimates.
V. Decision
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of James P. Wesberry, Jr.
A split decision of 6-3.
VI. Reasoning
The majority opinion was written by Justice Hugo L. Black, who believed that the
“right to vote is too important in our free society to be stripped of judicial
protection.” He confirmed the idea that population differences in Georgia’s
congressional districts were so unbalanced that they violated the Constitution.
He sited Article I, Section II of the Constitution which states that representatives
shall be chosen “by the People of the several States and will be apportioned
among the several States…according to their respective Numbers…” This meant
that one man’s vote should be of equal measure to another’s and that one should
not be penalized for living in a more populated area.
The dissent argument was that Justice Black was wrong in his interpretation of
Article I, Section II of the Constitution. Also, the dissent used the 1929
Reapportionment Act that ruled over the previous acts that congressional
districts be equal in population.
VII. Personal Opinion
If I were the Judge, I would have ruled in favor of Wesberry as well. It is
specifically stated in Article I, Section II of the United States Constitution that
representatives for a certain area be elected based upon the number of people in
that area. It was very obvious that the population of the Fifth Congressional
District in Georgia was much greater than any other district in Georgia. Also, it is
common sense that the more constituents in an area, the less the vote counts for
an individual constituent. I understand why Wesberry was disturbed by the
population counts of the districts-he felt he was not being represented as fairly as
constituents from other districts were. However, I do believe that this case may
have been too overstated; though it did set specific guidelines for congressional
apportionment.
The Supreme Court was right to side with James P. Wesberry. In a case that was
threatened to be thrown out and maybe should have been, the Court sided well.
They researched and established even further the idea that representatives are
elected based on the population of a district. The six agreeing judges should be
commended for their belief that a citizen’s right to vote is too important to not be
protected by the judicial system.
VIII. Historical Significance of the Case
Since the advent of computers, mathematical precision of population in
apportionment has become easier to achieve, which soon became the Court’s
standard for congressional apportionment. Though some later cases has allowed
for substantial deviation of equal population, the Court has maintained the “near
precision” obligation in congressional districts.
Related Cases:
Baker v. Carr
Colegrove v. Green
Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
Mahan v. Howell
IX. Citations
Garbloom. "Wesberry V Sanders." Associated Content from Yahoo! Garbloom, 5
Mar. 2010. Web. 30 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2758685/wesberry_v_sanders.htm
l?cat=37>.
"Wesberry v. Sanders." Answers.com. Answers Corporation, 2011. Web. 30 Apr.
2011. <http://www.answers.com/topic/wesberry-v-sanders>.
"Wesberry v. Sanders." CVN Law School - Courtroom View Network. Courtroom
Connect Inc., 2011. Web. 30 Apr. 2011.
<http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/9722-wesberry-v-sanders>.
"Wesberry v. Sanders." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Oyez,
Inc., 2011. Web. 30 Apr. 2011. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/19601969/1963/1963_22>.