Wesberry V. Sanders
Argued on 1963
Ruled on 1964
By: Jerome Hester & Luis Perez
14th Amendment
• “All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.”
Constitutional issue
• Did Georgia congressional districts violate the
14th amendment.
• The Supreme Court noted that Article I, Section
2 of the United States Constitution declares that
representatives shall be chosen "by the People
of the several States" and shall be "apportioned
among the several States...according to their
respective Numbers...." These words, the Court
held, mean that "as nearly as practicable one
man's vote in a congressional election is to be
worth as much as another's."
Litigant
• Wesberry claimed this system diluted his
rights to vote compared to other Georgia
residents.
• That the Georgia apportionment statute
resulted in election districts that were
unconstitutionally disproportionate to one
another in population size.
•
Litigant 2
• Sanders the governor of Georgia enforcing
the law’s of the state’ which said that state
rules regarding how vote are cast are
unjust. Georgia was voting by districs
rather than by person.
Background on case
• Wesberry complained that his district was
not fairly represented in the U.S.
Congress, and that their votes were not
equalized with everyone else.
Majority opinion: key points
• Justice Black indicated that exact equality of
population in each district was not entirely
possible.
• Soon, however, computers made it possible
to draw congressional districts with
mathematical precision,
• And in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler the Court made
that the standard for apportioning
congressional election districts.
Significance
• The significance of this case was that it
enforced the “One person one vote”
system.
• Wesberry was the first real test of the
"reapportionment revolution" set in motion
by Baker v. Carr (1962), in which the
Supreme Court held that federal courts
could rule on reapportionment questions.
Your response to this
case/reflection
• We believe that this case was a great case
to undergo because, it showed how one
person can make a difference. Also it
helped enforce the 14th amendment ruling
on the “One person one vote process.”
Bibliography
• http://www.oyez.org/cases/19601969/1963/1963_22
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v_sa
nders
• http://law.jrank.org/pages/13392/Wesberry
-v-Sanders.html