Which case established the 'one person, one vote' principle in drawing state legislative districts?

Which case established the 'one person, one vote' principle in drawing state legislative districts?

• A. Reynolds v. Sims
• B. Shelby County v. Holder
• C. Baker v. Carr
• D. Citizens United v. FEC

Answer: (C)

The idea behind “one person, one vote” is that each vote should have roughly the same weight across different districts, so representation matches population fairly and protects equal protection. That standard for state legislative districts was set in Reynolds v. Sims (1964). In that decision, the Supreme Court said that both houses of state legislatures must be apportioned on a population basis, with districts that are as equal in population as practical. By tying district boundaries to roughly equal populations, the Court ensured that a vote in one district carries about the same influence as a vote in another, preventing gross gaps in representation. Baker v. Carr (1962) matters here too, but in a different way: it held that redistricting cases are justiciable in federal courts, which allowed Reynolds to be heard and decided. The other cases mentioned deal with different topics—preclearance under the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance—rather than the apportionment principle itself. So, the rule about equal-population districts for state legislatures comes from Reynolds v. Sims.

The idea behind “one person, one vote” is that each vote should have roughly the same weight across different districts, so representation matches population fairly and protects equal protection.

That standard for state legislative districts was set in Reynolds v. Sims (1964). In that decision, the Supreme Court said that both houses of state legislatures must be apportioned on a population basis, with districts that are as equal in population as practical. By tying district boundaries to roughly equal populations, the Court ensured that a vote in one district carries about the same influence as a vote in another, preventing gross gaps in representation.

Baker v. Carr (1962) matters here too, but in a different way: it held that redistricting cases are justiciable in federal courts, which allowed Reynolds to be heard and decided. The other cases mentioned deal with different topics—preclearance under the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance—rather than the apportionment principle itself.

So, the rule about equal-population districts for state legislatures comes from Reynolds v. Sims.