Fairness of representation and the Supreme Court
The fairness of representation in the context of the Supreme Court centers around the principle of "one person, one vote," which asserts that each individual's vote holds equal weight in elections. Historically, the Supreme Court was reluctant to intervene in legislative apportionment, allowing state legislatures to determine their electoral district boundaries. This changed in the early 1960s, particularly with landmark cases like Baker v. Carr, which recognized that failure to adjust district boundaries according to population changes could violate the equal protection clause. Subsequent rulings, such as those in Gray v. Sanders, Wesberry v. Sanders, and Reynolds v. Sims, extended the one person, one vote principle to both federal and state elections. The Court has addressed issues of racial gerrymandering, indicating that electoral maps should not discriminate against voters based on race, as seen in cases like Shaw v. Reno and Davis v. Bandemer. As of 2022, the Supreme Court continues to explore fairness of representation, taking on cases that scrutinize redistricting practices for compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The ongoing dialogue about electoral fairness is crucial for understanding how representation impacts diverse communities across the United States.
On this Page
Fairness of representation and the Supreme Court
Description: Each voter’s right, in a representative democracy, to have the same opportunity as every other voter to influence the outcome of elections for legislative representatives.
Significance: The “one person, one vote” principle set forth by the Supreme Court in 1963 required that electoral districts be drawn up with roughly equal populations that do not artificially favor a particular racial or political group.
For many years the Supreme Court refused to become involved in what Justice Felix Frankfurter termed the “political thicket” of legislative apportionment. State legislatures were free to draw their own electoral district boundaries for both state and federal offices. In Baker v. Carr (1962), Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., speaking for the Court, stated that failure of a legislature to reapportion its district to reflect population changes could be considered a violation of the equal protection clause. The Court defined the concept of fairness of representation in Gray v. Sanders (1963) as the “one person, one vote” principle, which holds that each person’s vote should carry the same weight in an election. In Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), it ruled the principle applicable to both federal and state elections. In Davis v. Bandemer (1986), Shaw v. Reno (1993), Bush v. Vera (1996), and other cases, the Court used the one person, one vote principle, as well as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, to ban racial gerrymandering.
The Court continued to hear cases on the issue of fairness of representation into the twenty-first century. In 2022, the Court agreed to hear the case of Merrill v. Milligan, which brought up important issues of fairness of representation and violations of the Voting Rights Act. The Court agreed to look into the constitutionality of Alabama’s redistricting plan and whether it was discriminatory based on issues of race.
Bibliography
“How the Supreme Court's New Gerrymandering Case Threatens the Voting Rights Act.” Brennan Center for Justice, 29 Sept. 2022, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-supreme-courts-new-gerrymandering-case-threatens-voting-rights-act. Accessed 9 Apr. 2023.