Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional Lawcongressional apportionmentright to votejusticiabilityArticle I, Section 2one person one votecongressional districtsArticle I Section 2
Facts
Georgia's 1931 statute created ten congressional districts. According to the 1960 census, the Fifth District had 823,680 people, while the average district population was 394,312 and the Ninth District had only 272,154 people. Because each district elected one Congressman, the Fifth District's representative represented two to three times as many people as representatives from some other districts. Appellants, voters in the Fifth District, claimed this population disparity debased their votes in violation of the Federal Constitution.
Issue
Whether a state congressional districting statute that creates districts with grossly unequal populations violates Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution by abridging the right to vote for members of Congress. Also, whether such a claim is justiciable in federal court.
Rule
Article I, Section 2's command 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 must be worth as much as another's. Claims that state congressional apportionment laws debase voting rights are justiciable.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
California has 12 congressional districts. Based on the latest census, one district centered in Fresno has about 920,000 residents, while another in the northern part of the state has about 310,000, yet each elects one Representative. Elena Park, a qualified voter in the Fresno district, files suit in federal court against state election officials seeking a declaration that the districting statute is unconstitutional and an injunction against future elections under it.
What is the strongest argument for allowing Elena's suit to proceed?
Explanation. The majority held that a challenge to congressional districts based on gross population disparities is justiciable in federal court. Baker v. Carr's justiciability analysis applies, and Article I, Section 4 does not strip courts of power to protect the constitutional right at issue. The complaint may proceed because it alleges debasement of vote weight in choosing members of Congress.