Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963) (No. 112)
Bookreader Item Preview
Share or Embed This Item
- Publication date
- 1963
- Topics
- Decision
- Collection
- us-supreme-court; microfiche; USGovernmentDocuments; government-documents
- Contributor
- Internet Archive
- Language
- English
- Item Size
- 1.7G
Case name: Gray v. Sanders
Opinion filed: 1963-03-18
Docket No.: 112
Citations:
• 9 L. Ed. 2d 821
• 83 S. Ct. 801
• 372 U.S. 368
• 1963 U.S. LEXIS 1944
Case holding summaries:
• political party's actions in conducting state-regulated primary constitute state action
• holding that state regulation of the preliminary phase of the election process may constitute state action
• "The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing——one person, one vote."
• "The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing——one person, one vote."
• "the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications"
• locating the source of the one-person, one-vote requirement in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
• “[A]ny person whose right to vote is impaired has standing to sue” (citations omitted)
• invalidating Georgia's county-unit method of voting, which gave disproportionate weight to rural voters
• "We agree with that result and conclude that state regulation of this preliminary phase of the election process makes it state action."
• political primary constitutes state action where state enforces exclusion of certain potential voters
• invalidating Georgia primary scheme where candidates were selected under a "county unit" system that effectively weighted rural votes more heavily than urban votes
• legality of state statute regulating primary elections
• county unit system that weighted rural votes more heavily than urban votes
• explaining that the system “weight[ed] the rural vote more heavily than the urban vote and weight[ed] some small rural counties heavier than other larger rural counties”
• explaining that the system “weight[ed] the rural vote more heavily than the urban vote and weight[ed] some small rural counties heavier than other larger rural counties”
• describing the principle of “one person, one vote”
• describing the principle of “one person, one vote”
• invalidating primary system that diluted individual's vote in a primary
• “The concept of ‘we the people’ under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications.”
• any person whose right to vote is impaired has standing to sue
Opinion filed: 1963-03-18
Docket No.: 112
Citations:
• 9 L. Ed. 2d 821
• 83 S. Ct. 801
• 372 U.S. 368
• 1963 U.S. LEXIS 1944
Case holding summaries:
• political party's actions in conducting state-regulated primary constitute state action
• holding that state regulation of the preliminary phase of the election process may constitute state action
• "The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing——one person, one vote."
• "The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing——one person, one vote."
• "the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications"
• locating the source of the one-person, one-vote requirement in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
• “[A]ny person whose right to vote is impaired has standing to sue” (citations omitted)
• invalidating Georgia's county-unit method of voting, which gave disproportionate weight to rural voters
• "We agree with that result and conclude that state regulation of this preliminary phase of the election process makes it state action."
• political primary constitutes state action where state enforces exclusion of certain potential voters
• invalidating Georgia primary scheme where candidates were selected under a "county unit" system that effectively weighted rural votes more heavily than urban votes
• legality of state statute regulating primary elections
• county unit system that weighted rural votes more heavily than urban votes
• explaining that the system “weight[ed] the rural vote more heavily than the urban vote and weight[ed] some small rural counties heavier than other larger rural counties”
• explaining that the system “weight[ed] the rural vote more heavily than the urban vote and weight[ed] some small rural counties heavier than other larger rural counties”
• describing the principle of “one person, one vote”
• describing the principle of “one person, one vote”
• invalidating primary system that diluted individual's vote in a primary
• “The concept of ‘we the people’ under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications.”
• any person whose right to vote is impaired has standing to sue
- Access-restricted-item
- true
- Adaptive_ocr
- true
- Addeddate
- 2025-05-07 21:07:57
- Betterpdf
- true
- Bookreader-defaults
- mode/1up
- Boxid
- IA40386410
- Camera
- Vieworks VP-151MX > ML-F80C-0510
- Cardcount
- 12
- Collection_added
- additional_collections
- Derive_version
- 1.4.1
- Envelopeid
- 0163
- External-identifier
-
urn:courtlistener:106547/gray-v-sanders
- Identifier
- micro_IA40386410_0163
- Identifier-ark
- ark:/13960/s2g90zmcm64
- Micro_review
- done
- Ocr
- tesseract 5.3.0-6-g76ae
- Ocr_detected_lang
- en
- Ocr_detected_lang_conf
- 1.0000
- Ocr_detected_script
- Latin
- Ocr_detected_script_conf
- 0.6808
- Ocr_module_version
- 0.0.21
- Ocr_parameters
- -l eng
- Page_number_confidence
- 54
- Page_number_module_version
- 1.0.5
- Pages
- 531
- Pdf_degraded
- invalid-jp2-headers
- Pdf_module_version
- 0.0.25
- Ppi
- 400
- Product code
- 112
- Review_date
- 20250514125015
- Review_operator
- associate-hanieme-dumarig@archive.org
- Review_time
- 1421
- Scandate
- 20250507205313
- Scanner
- microfiche-rmd-04
- Scanningcenter
- sanfrancisco
- Software_version
- ArchiveCD Version 3.1.12
- Source
- Microfiche
- Total-time
- 707
comment
Reviews (1)
236 Views
DOWNLOAD OPTIONS
DAISY
Uplevel BACK
micro_IA40386410_0163%201.%20Transcript%20of%20Record_daisy.zip
micro_IA40386410_0163%202.%20Motion%20to%20Advance_daisy.zip
micro_IA40386410_0163%203.%20Statement%20as%20to%20Jurisdiction_daisy.zip
micro_IA40386410_0163%204.%20Motion%20to%20Affirm_daisy.zip
micro_IA40386410_0163%205.%20Brief%20on%20Behalf%20of%20Appellants_daisy.zip
micro_IA40386410_0163%206.%20Brief%20on%20Behalf%20of%20Appelleeo_daisy.zip
micro_IA40386410_0163%207.%20Brief%20for%20the%20United%20States%20as%20Amicus%20Curiae_daisy.zip
micro_IA40386410_0163_daisy.zip
For users with print-disabilities
EPUB
Uplevel BACK
micro_IA40386410_0163%201.%20Transcript%20of%20Record.epub
micro_IA40386410_0163%202.%20Motion%20to%20Advance.epub
micro_IA40386410_0163%203.%20Statement%20as%20to%20Jurisdiction.epub
micro_IA40386410_0163%204.%20Motion%20to%20Affirm.epub
micro_IA40386410_0163%205.%20Brief%20on%20Behalf%20of%20Appellants.epub
micro_IA40386410_0163%206.%20Brief%20on%20Behalf%20of%20Appelleeo.epub
micro_IA40386410_0163%207.%20Brief%20for%20the%20United%20States%20as%20Amicus%20Curiae.epub
micro_IA40386410_0163.epub
PAGE NUMBERS JSON
Uplevel BACK
IN COLLECTIONS
US Supreme Court Records and BriefsUploaded by Fernando Sibrian on
Open Library