Wesberry V Sanders

Wesberry v. Sanders(1964), was a case involving congressional districts in the state of Georgia, presented to the Supreme Court of the United States. James P. Wesberry, Jr. filed a suit against the Governor of Georgia, Carl E. Sanders, protesting the state's apportionment scheme. The problem was that Georgia's Fifth Congressional District, the population of which being two to three times greater than that of some other congressional districts in the state, claimed that the more populated districts should be realigned to make each district equal in population. Each district is only appointed one Congressman, so Wesberry claimed this system lessened his right to vote compared to other Georgia residents. Georgia's congressional districts threw into question whether or not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment was a legitimate argument. This also opened up arguments that the districts denied citizens the full benefit of their right to vote.

Immediate changes were the direct result of the decision by the Supreme Court in 1964. House districts and rural overrepresentation were identified and eliminated in Wesberry v. Sanders, where the Court confirmed that the population differences among Georgia's congressional districts were so lopsided that they violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court referenced Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which declares that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States and will be apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." which meant that one man's vote in a congressional election should be be worth as much as another's and one shouldn't be penalized for living in a more populated district.
This aided in reaching its decision on February 17, 1964 by a 6-3 vote.

Wesberry and the Court's later "one person, one vote" decisions had a huge impact on the organization of the House, and on the direction of public policy. However, it is easy to manipulate the system using the "one person, one vote" rule, so it must be watched and regulated carefully.