One Person, One Vote: Constitutional Safeguards For Voting Equality

The one person, one vote principle is undergirded by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The principle was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2022, after a three-judge district court in Texas ruled that basing legislative districts on total population meant that some districts had many more actual voters than others. The Supreme Court's most relevant case on the topic is Reynolds v. Sims (1964).

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$237.39 $359

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.38 $126.95

The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause

The principle of "one person, one vote" was established in the 1960s, with the Court's 1962 decision in Baker v. Carr and the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims. At the time, these decisions were controversial and went against deeply rooted political traditions and entrenched political powers.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has been applied in cases involving congressional and legislative apportionment, such as the 40 per centum voter requirement contained in Amendment 17 to the Washington State Constitution. This requirement does not conflict with the "one man, one vote" principle, as decided by the United States Supreme Court.

The "one person, one vote" rule also comes up in the context of states gerrymandering and strategically drafting voting laws to increase the voting power of particular groups to the disadvantage of others. The Supreme Court has issued a series of opinions on what equality means in this context, with the most relevant case being Reynolds v. Sims in 1964.

The 17th Amendment's 40% voter requirement

The 'one person, one vote' principle is rooted in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that each person be treated equally in their voting power. This principle was affirmed in the Supreme Court case of *Reynolds v. Sims* in 1964, which overruled the precedent set in *Colegrove v. Green*. The Court's decision in *Reynolds v. Sims* established that the 'one person, one vote' principle was so profoundly rooted in the Constitution that its practice became "inevitable".

The 'one person, one vote' principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in various cases, including those involving legislative redistricting. For example, in Texas, a three-judge district court upheld the principle under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, arguing that legislative districts should be based on total population, regardless of citizenship status or age. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which stated that "today's ruling affirms the longstanding state practice of counting everyone in redistricting".

The Supreme Court case Reynolds v. Sims

The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause undergirds the one person, one vote standard. This clause requires that each person be treated equally in their voting power. The Supreme Court case Reynolds v. Sims (1964) is the most relevant case to the one person, one vote standard.

Reynolds v. Sims was a landmark case that established the principle of "one person, one vote" in the United States. The case centred around the issue of legislative redistricting and the question of whether legislative districts should be based on total population or the number of actual voters. The plaintiffs in the case argued that basing districts on total population meant that some districts had many more actual voters than others, especially in states with large numbers of non-citizens.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the "one person, one vote" principle, upholding the idea that each person should have equal voting power. The Court's decision was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. The Court found that basing districts on total population, rather than the number of actual voters, was the best way to ensure that each person's vote was treated equally.

The case had a significant impact on voting rights and representation in the United States. It helped to establish the principle that voting districts should be drawn in a way that ensures equal representation for all citizens. This meant that each person's vote would carry the same weight, regardless of where they lived or the demographics of their district.

The decision in Reynolds v. Sims was not without controversy. At the time, the Court's decision was seen as a wrenching and agonizing choice, as it went against deeply rooted political traditions and entrenched political powers. Some members of the Court also believed that the precedent set by the case of Colegrove v. Green protected the practice of democracy in America and the integrity of the Court itself.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$269.76 $305

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism (Examples & Explanations Series)

$59.81 $76.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights (Examples & Explanations Series)

$76.95 $76.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$75.91 $345

The Court's 1962 decision in Baker v. Carr

The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause undergirds the one person, one vote standard. The Supreme Court's 1962 decision in Baker v. Carr was the first step towards establishing the value of "one person, one vote". The Court had to overcome deeply rooted political traditions and entrenched political powers fiercely opposed to change. The decision was followed by the case of Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, which further entrenched the principle. The "one person, one vote" standard seeks to establish equality in voting and representation. It requires that each person be treated equally in their voting power, regardless of where they live or their citizenship status. This means that legislative districts must be drawn based on total population, rather than the number of eligible voters, to ensure that each person's vote carries equal weight.

Gerrymandering and strategic drafting of voting laws

The "one person, one vote" principle is undergirded by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clause requires that each person be treated equally in their voting power.

The Supreme Court of the United States has played a pivotal role in upholding the "one person, one vote" standard. In the landmark case of Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, the Court affirmed the value of this principle, which seemed so profoundly rooted in the Constitution that its practice became "inevitable". The Court's decision was not without controversy, as it had to overcome deeply rooted political traditions, entrenched political powers opposed to change, and its own precedent.

The "one person, one vote" principle also applies to legislative redistricting. In a case brought before a three-judge district court in Texas, the plaintiffs argued that basing legislative districts on total population meant that some districts had many more actual voters than others, especially in states with large numbers of non-citizens. The court upheld the "one person, one vote" principle, affirming the longstanding state practice of counting everyone in redistricting, regardless of citizenship status or age.

The "one person, one vote" standard is a fundamental aspect of democratic governance, ensuring that each person's vote carries equal weight and that all citizens are treated fairly in the electoral process. By preventing gerrymandering and strategic drafting of voting laws, this principle helps to safeguard the integrity of elections and promote equal representation for all.

Frequently asked questions