View source for Wesberry v. Sanders

{{Short description|1964 United States Supreme Court case on congressional districts}}
{{Use American English|date=September 2025}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=August 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Wesberry v. Sanders
  |ArgueDate=November 18
  |ArgueYear=1963
  |DecideDate=February 17
  |DecideYear=1964
  |FullName=James P. Wesberry, Jr. et al. v. Carl E. Sanders et al. 
  |USVol=376
  |USPage=1
  |ParallelCitations=84 S. Ct. 526; 11 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 481
  |Prior=''Wesberry v. Vandiver'', 206 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/206/276/1423919/ 276] ([[N.D. Ga.]] 1962), ''prob. juris. noted'', {{ussc|374|802|1963|el=no}}.
  |Holding=The Constitution requires that members of the House of Representatives be selected by districts composed, as nearly as is practicable, of equal population.
  |Majority=Black
  |JoinMajority=Warren, Douglas, Brennan, White, Goldberg
  |Concurrence/Dissent=Clark
  |Dissent2=Harlan
  |JoinDissent2=Stewart (in part)
  |LawsApplied=U.S. Const., art. I, § 2.
  |Overturned previous case={{ussc|name=Colegrove v. Green|volume=328|page=549|year=1946}}
}}
{{wikisource|Wesberry v. Sanders|''Wesberry v. Sanders''}}

'''''Wesberry v. Sanders''''', 376 U.S. 1 (1964), was a landmark [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] case in which the Court ruled that [[Congressional district|districts]] in the [[United States House of Representatives]] must be approximately equal in population. Along with ''[[Baker v. Carr]]'' (1962) and ''[[Reynolds v. Sims]]'' (1964), it was part of a series of [[Warren Court]] cases that applied the principle of "[[one person, one vote]]" to U.S. legislative bodies.

[[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article One]] of the [[United States Constitution]] requires members of the U.S. House of Representatives to be [[United States congressional apportionment|apportioned]] by population among the states, but it does not specify exactly how the representatives from each state should be elected. The case arose from a challenge to the unequal population of congressional districts in the state of [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]].

In his [[majority opinion]], which was joined by five other justices, [[Associate Justice]] [[Hugo Black]] held that Article One required that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's." The decision had a major impact on representation in the House, as many states had districts of unequal population, often to the detriment of urban voters. The [[United States Senate]] was unaffected by the decision since the Constitution explicitly grants each state two senators representing the state at large.

==Decision==
{{quote box
| quote  =  No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. [[United States Constitution|Our Constitution]] leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.| source =
--[[Supreme Court Justice|Justice]] [[Hugo Black]] on [[Suffrage|the right to vote]] as the foundation of [[democracy]] in ''Wesberry v. Sanders'' (1964).<ref>{{cite web |title=''Wesberry v. Sanders'', 376 U.S. 1 (1964), at 17-18. |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/1/ |publisher=Justia US Supreme Court Center |access-date=January 5, 2021 |date=February 17, 1964}}</ref>
| width  = 27%
| align  = left
| style = padding:8px;
}}

Writing for the Court majority in ''Wesberry'', [[Hugo Black|Justice Black]] argued that a reading of the debates of the Constitutional Convention demonstrated conclusively that the Framers had meant, in using the phrase “by the People,” to guarantee equality of representation in the election of Members of the House of Representatives.<ref name="onecle1">[http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/05-congressional-districting.html Congressional Districting – United States Constitution<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

== Dissent ==
Writing in dissent, [[John Marshall Harlan II|Justice Harlan]] argued that the statements cited by Justice Black had uniformly been in the context of the [[Great Compromise]]. Justice Harlan further argued that the Convention debates were clear to the effect that Article I, § 4, had vested exclusive control over state districting practices in Congress and that the Court action overrode a congressional decision not to require equally populated districts.<ref name="onecle1"/>

==See also==
* ''[[Baker v. Carr]]'', {{Ussc|volume=369|page=186|year=1962}}: [[Redistricting]] qualifies as a [[Justiciability|justiciable]] question, thus enabling federal courts to hear redistricting cases.
* ''[[Reynolds v. Sims]]'', {{Ussc|volume=377|page=533|year=1964}}: Districts in State Legislatures must be approximately equal in population.
* ''[[Thornburg v. Gingles]]'', {{Ussc|volume=478|page=30|year=1986}}: State Legislative multimember district invalid where three criteria met such that "...a bloc voting majority must ''usually'' be able to defeat candidates supported by a politically cohesive, geographically insular minority group."
* ''[[Miller v. Johnson]]'', [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 515|515]] [[United States Reports|U.S.]] 900 (1995): 
* ''[[Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama]],'' {{ussc|575|___|2015|el=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/575/13-895/case.pdf}}: Racial gerrymandering claims must be considered district-by-district, rather than by looking at the state as an undifferentiated whole. 
*[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 376]]
* [[One man, one vote|One Person, One Vote]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
*{{Citation |last=Carpenter |first=Richard V. |year=1964 |title=''Wesberry v. Sanders'': A Case of Oversimplification |journal=Villanova Law Review |volume=9 |page=415 }}.
*{{Citation |last=Weiss |first=Jonathan |year=1964 |title=An Analysis of ''Wesberry v. Sanders'' |journal=Southern California Law Review |volume=8 |page=67 }}.

==External links==
*{{caselaw source
 |case=''Wesberry v. Sanders'', {{ussc|376|1|1964|el=no}}
 |findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/376/1.html 
 |justia=http://supreme.justia.com/us/376/1/case.html
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep376/usrep376001/usrep376001.pdf
}}

{{USRedistrictinglaw}}

[[Category:United States equal protection case law]]
[[Category:1964 in United States case law]]
[[Category:United States electoral redistricting case law]]
[[Category:United States one person, one vote legal doctrine]]
[[Category:Congressional districts of Georgia (U.S. state)]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court]]
[[Category:Civil rights movement case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]