 | ||||||
| ||||||
  Wesberry v. Sanders, February 1964 The Georgia court case of Wesberry v. Sanders significantly expanded the concept of "one man, one vote" and is most oftenlinked with the phrase. The court's ruling on Wesberry v. Sanders explicitly stated that Congressionaldistricts must be as equal in population as is practical. In the decision there was still no mention ofthe role of state legislative bodies, but the justices seemed to be headedtoward guidelines that would determine how state legislative boundaries were drawn. Reynolds v. Sims, June 15, 1964 (277 US 533) The Supreme Court handed down six decisions on June 15, 1964 and collectively they have come to be known by thename of one of these cases, Reynolds v. Sims, which originated in Alabama.The ruling in Reynolds v. Sims addressed four major issues that affected legislative reapportionment:
The message of Reynolds v. Sims wasclear: the states must apportion legislative districts to contain equalpopulations and allow each citizen's vote to have equal weight. Thigpen v. Meyers, June 22, 1964 (211 FS 826) In December 1962, the United States District Court for the Western District ofWashington heard the case of Thigpen v. Meyers. James Thigpen, a Justice of the Peacefrom a small town south of Seattle, initiated the lawsuit and argued that his right to"equal protection" was violated by the huge imbalances in the size of the state'slegislative districts. The State of Washington, represented by Secretary of State VictorMeyers, claimed that there were "insufficient facts of which the Court may take judicialnotice, and inasmuch as the Court may not consider other evidence, it is unable toadjudicate the issues involved." The ruling in Baker v. Carr had clearly put redistrictingwithin the scope of the judicial powers, and the District Court used this power to declareWashington's legislative districts null and void. In his opinion, Justice William Beekswrote that the population variance rendered the districts "invidiously discriminatory." The State appealed the case to the Supreme Court, but in June 1964 the Court upheld thelower court's ruling in Thigpen v. Meyers on the same day it addressed several otherreapportionment cases from around the country. The failure of the appeal in Thigpen v. Meyersforced the Washington Legislature to redistrict during the 1965 session and otherstate legislatures had to follow suit. The case of Thigpen v. Meyers was specific toWashington State, but by 1964 it was clear that this and other court rulings in the early1960s had profoundly affected voting rights in the nation as a whole. | 
|
 |  |
