1. Case Title: The case of Wesberry v Sanders, which began in 1963 between James Wesberry, the plaintiff, and Carl Sanders, the defendant, was decided by the Supreme Court in favor of James Wesberry in 1964.
2. The Law: This case discussed clauses 1 and 3 of Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution which respectively state that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states...” and “representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states… according to their respective numbers...”. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment, § 2, stating “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers…”was considered in the case. …show more content…
The Arguments: As seen on law.Cornell.edu, in the majority opinion, Justice Black reasoned that Art.1, § 2, clause 1’s “by the people of the several states” means that one person’s vote in a congressional election is to amount the same as another’s in order to provide fair representation. Having one vote worth more in one district than another causes damage to the voters because it goes against the fundamental ideas of democracy and disregards the principle of being “elected by the people,” where every vote is accounted for. As shown on law.Cornell.edu, Justice Black reasons a district having greater voice in choosing Congressmen defeats the principle of the Great Compromise, which is equal representation in the House. According to law.Cornell.edu, Justice Black states in the majority opinion “other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined” and that “our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.” Even though it is not possible to draw districts to result with precisely equal population, there is no reason to ignore the Constitution’s aim to attain equal representation. The less populated districts given greater voice, or rotten boroughs, shall not be allowed in the election of House …show more content…
Rules, Maxims, Doctrines: The decision of Wesberry has established that federal courts have the jurisdiction to enforce the constitutional requirement that representation should be determined by equally populated districts. This required the legislatures to redraw their districts and continually conduct a census every ten years to perform reapportionment. With this case, cities and suburbs gained a greater voice and the overrepresentation of the rural population decreased; However, gerrymandering still occurs in order for certain districts to gain a majority for a party. Wesberry further established the principle of “one man, one vote” and had districts follow the principle of “equal representation for equal numbers of people.” According to law.Cornell.edu, the case established that “no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the elections of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must
2. The Law: This case discussed clauses 1 and 3 of Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution which respectively state that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states...” and “representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states… according to their respective numbers...”. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment, § 2, stating “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers…”was considered in the case. …show more content…
The Arguments: As seen on law.Cornell.edu, in the majority opinion, Justice Black reasoned that Art.1, § 2, clause 1’s “by the people of the several states” means that one person’s vote in a congressional election is to amount the same as another’s in order to provide fair representation. Having one vote worth more in one district than another causes damage to the voters because it goes against the fundamental ideas of democracy and disregards the principle of being “elected by the people,” where every vote is accounted for. As shown on law.Cornell.edu, Justice Black reasons a district having greater voice in choosing Congressmen defeats the principle of the Great Compromise, which is equal representation in the House. According to law.Cornell.edu, Justice Black states in the majority opinion “other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined” and that “our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.” Even though it is not possible to draw districts to result with precisely equal population, there is no reason to ignore the Constitution’s aim to attain equal representation. The less populated districts given greater voice, or rotten boroughs, shall not be allowed in the election of House …show more content…
Rules, Maxims, Doctrines: The decision of Wesberry has established that federal courts have the jurisdiction to enforce the constitutional requirement that representation should be determined by equally populated districts. This required the legislatures to redraw their districts and continually conduct a census every ten years to perform reapportionment. With this case, cities and suburbs gained a greater voice and the overrepresentation of the rural population decreased; However, gerrymandering still occurs in order for certain districts to gain a majority for a party. Wesberry further established the principle of “one man, one vote” and had districts follow the principle of “equal representation for equal numbers of people.” According to law.Cornell.edu, the case established that “no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the elections of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must