Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gray Vs. Sanders

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 18, 1963

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

63 entries 13 linked 50 unlinked
Show
  1. Smith Vs. Allwright US Supreme Court · Apr 03, 1944
  2. Baker Vs. Carr US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1962
  3. Nixon Vs. Condon US Supreme Court · May 02, 1932
  4. United States Vs. Classic US Supreme Court · May 26, 1941
  5. Wiley Vs. Sinkler US Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1900
  6. Swafford Vs. Templeton US Supreme Court · May 19, 1902
  7. United States Vs. Saylor US Supreme Court · May 22, 1944
  8. South Vs. Peters US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1950
  9. Colegrove Vs. Green US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1946
  10. United States Vs. Mosley US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1915
  11. Gomillion Vs. Lightfoot US Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1960
  12. Cook Vs. Fortson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1946
  13. Scholle Vs. Hare US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1962
  14. U.S. 368 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Gray v. Sanders
    Search
  15. U.S. 368 (1963) Gray v. Sanders
    Search
  16. United States v. Georgia
    Search
  17. Ibid. The District Court held that, as a result of Baker v. Carr
    Search
  18. state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Sibley, writing for the court in Chapman v. King
    Search
  19. this preliminary phase of the election process Page 372 U. S. 375 makes it state action. See United States v. Classic
    Search
  20. U. S. 649 . We also agree that appellee, like any person whose right to vote is impaired ( Smith v. Allwright
    Search
  21. merits, we take a different view of the nature of the problem than did the District Court. This case, unlike Baker v. Carr
    Search
  22. State Legislature or for the Federal House of Representatives. Nor does it include the related problems of Gomillion v. Lightfoot
    Search
  23. legislature. And we intimate no opinion on the constitutional phases of that problem beyond what we said in Baker v. Carr
    Search
  24. As we held in Lassiter v. Northampton
    Search
  25. more heavily than the Negro vote, none could successfully contend that that discrimination was allowable. See Terry v. Adams
    Search
  26. voter's vote is entitled to be counted once. It must be correctly counted and reported. As stated in United States v. Mosley
    Search
  27. be recognized in any preliminary election that in fact determines the true weight a vote will have. See United States v. Classic
    Search
  28. equality in the voting booth contained in the Fifteenth Amendment extends to all phases of state elections, see Terry v. Adams
    Search
  29. Minors, felons, and other classes may be excluded. See Page 372 U. S. 381 Lassiter v. Northampton
    Search
  30. specified, we see no constitutional way by which equality of voting power may be evaded. As we stated in Gomillion v. Lightfoot
    Search
  31. Ashby v. White
    Search
  32. the basic ground rules implementing Baker v. Carr
    Search
  33. a given constituency, there can be room for but a single constitutional rule -- one voter, one vote. United States v. Classic
    Search
  34. U. S. 299 . MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting. When Baker v. Carr
    Search
  35. was argued at the last Term, we were assured that if this Court would only remove the roadblocks of Colegrove v. Green
    Search
  36. four occasions on which Georgia's County Unit System has previously been unsuccessfully challenged in this Court. Cook v. Fortson
    Search
  37. decided with Turman v. Duckworth
    Search
  38. Cox v. Peters
    Search
  39. and Hartsfield v. Sloan
    Search
  40. but, in light of the judicial history recounted by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in his dissenting opinion in Baker v. Carr
    Search
  41. This estimate of the earlier situation is highlighted by the dissenting opinion of JUSTICES BLACK and DOUGLAS in South v. Peters
    Search
  42. also reflected these same views in noting their dissents in the Cox and Hartsfield cases. See also Cook v. Fortson
    Search
  43. s holding surely flies in the face of history. For, as impressively shown by the opinion of Frankfurter, J., in Baker v. Carr
    Search
  44. some 15 years ago, rejected, in a comparable situation, the notion of political equality now pronounced. In MacDougall v. Green
    Search
  45. to an impairment of the political franchise by ballot box stuffing or other criminal activity, e.g., United States v. Mosley
    Search
  46. U. S. 385 , or to the disenfranchisement of qualified voters on purely racial grounds, Gomillion v. Lightfoot
    Search
  47. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Barber
    Search
  48. the large counties is the urban-rural problem, so familiar in the American political scene. In my dissent in Baker v. Carr
    Search
  49. scheme. It was, of course, imponderables like these that lay at the root of the Court's steadfast pre- Baker v. Carr
    Search
  50. no longer escape the necessity of coming to grips with the thorny problems it so studiously strove to avoid in Baker v. Carr
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial