Wesberry V. Sanders

1
Wesberry V. Sanders

• Argued on 1963
• Ruled on 1964

By Jerome Hester Luis Perez
2
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.

3
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."

4
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.

5
Litigant 2

• Sanders the governor of Georgia enforcing the
  laws of the state which said that state rules
  regarding how vote are cast are unjust. Georgia
  was voting by districs rather than by person.

6
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.

7
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.

8
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.

9
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.

10
Bibliography

• http//www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_22
• http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v_sanders
• http//law.jrank.org/pages/13392/Wesberry-v-Sander
  s.html