Colegrove v. Green

http://dbpedia.org/resource/Colegrove_v._Green an entity of type: Thing

Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946), was a United States Supreme Court case. Writing for a 4–3 plurality, Justice Felix Frankfurter held that the federal judiciary had no power to interfere with malapportioned Congressional districts. The Court held that the Elections Clause in Article I, section IV of the U.S. Constitution left to the legislature of each state the authority to establish the time, place, and manner of holding elections for Congressional Representatives, and that only Congress (and thus not the federal judiciary) could determine whether individual state legislatures had fulfilled their responsibility to secure fair representation for citizens. rdf:langString
rdf:langString Colegrove v. Green
rdf:langString
rdf:langString Colegrove et al. v. Green et al.
xsd:integer 18774108
xsd:integer 1112394142
rdf:langString Black
rdf:langString Douglas, Murphy
xsd:integer 66
rdf:langString Dismissed, 64 F. Supp. 632
xsd:integer 549
xsd:integer 328
xsd:integer 1946
rdf:langString Colegrove v. Green,
xsd:gMonthDay --06-10
xsd:integer 1946
rdf:langString Colegrove et al. v. Green et al.
rdf:langString The remedy for unfairness in districting is to secure State legislatures that will apportion properly, or to invoke the ample powers of Congress. The Constitution has many commands that are not enforceable by courts, because they clearly fall outside the conditions and purposes that circumscribe judicial action.
rdf:langString Colegrove v. Green
rdf:langString Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946), was a United States Supreme Court case. Writing for a 4–3 plurality, Justice Felix Frankfurter held that the federal judiciary had no power to interfere with malapportioned Congressional districts. The Court held that the Elections Clause in Article I, section IV of the U.S. Constitution left to the legislature of each state the authority to establish the time, place, and manner of holding elections for Congressional Representatives, and that only Congress (and thus not the federal judiciary) could determine whether individual state legislatures had fulfilled their responsibility to secure fair representation for citizens. However, in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) the United States Supreme Court distinguished the Colegrove decision holding that malapportionment claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were not exempt from judicial review under Article IV, Section 4, as the equal protection issue in this case was separate from any political questions. The "one person, one vote" doctrine which requires electoral districts to be apportioned according to population, thus making each district roughly equal in population, was further cemented in the cases that followed Baker v. Carr, including Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963), which concerned state county districts; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), which concerned state legislature districts; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), which concerned U.S. Congressional districts; and Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968), which concerned local government districts, a decision which was upheld in Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989).
xsd:gMonthDay --03-07
xsd:integer 8
rdf:langString Rutledge
rdf:langString Reed, Burton
rdf:langString Jackson
rdf:langString Frankfurter
xsd:nonNegativeInteger 9819

data from the linked data cloud