Wesberry v. Sanders
Read the full opinion on CourtListener · The case as printed (Library of Congress)
Syllabus
The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court. It is shown as printed in the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan (optical character recognition in older volumes, not yet checked word by word against the page).
Appellants are qualified voters in Georgia's Fifth Congressional District, the population of which is two to three times greater than that of some other congressional districts in the State. Since there is only one Congressman for each district, appellants claimed debasement of their right to vote resulting from the 1931 Georgia apportionment statute and failure of the legislature to realign that State's congressional districts more nearly to equalize the population of each. They brought this class action under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3) asking that the apportionment statute be declared invalid and that appellees, the Governor and Secretary of State, be enjoined from conducting elections under it. A three-judge District Court, though recognizing the gross population imbalance of the Fifth District in relation to the other districts, dismissed the complaint for "want of equity." Held:
Printed on p. 1 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
1. As in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, which involved alleged malapportionment of seats in a state legislature, the District Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter; appellants had standing to sue; and they had stated a justiciable cause of action on which relief could be granted. Pp. 5-6.
Printed on p. 1 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
2. A complaint alleging debasement of the right to vote as a result of a state congressional apportionment law is not subject to dismissal for "want of equity" as raising a wholly "political" question. Pp. 6-7.
Printed on p. 1 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
3. The constitutional requirement in Art. I, § 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 is to be worth as much as another's. Pp. 7-8, 18.
Printed on p. 2 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
206 F. Supp. 276, reversed and remanded.
Printed on p. 2 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
Provisions
The Constitution Annotated's essays on these provisions cite this case.
- Amendment XIV, Section 1suggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt14.S1.8.6, Amdt14.S1.8.6.1, Amdt14.S1.8.6.3, Amdt14.S1.8.6.4, pp. 2249, 2256.
- Article I, Section 2, Clause 1suggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays ArtI.S2.C1.1, pp. 192, 193.
Overrules
- Colegrove v. Green (1946)suggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions, p. 2445: Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) — Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) (in part).
Why it is here
The library's first set of cases is chosen by fixed rules from the Constitution Annotated (2022), which cites this case as “Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)”:
- overrules Colegrove v. Green (table of overruled decisions)