Citation network
Fortson Vs. Morris
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 12, 1966
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 231 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Fortson v. MorrisSearch
-
U.S. 231 (1966) Fortson v. MorrisSearch
-
there being no federal constitutional provision prescribing the method a State must use to select its Governor. Gray v. SandersSearch
-
b) The Georgia Legislature is not disqualified for malapportionment to elect a Governor, since, under Toombs v. FortsonSearch
-
Equal Protection Clause. We reverse the District Court's judgment. The District Court erroneously relied on Gray v. SandersSearch
-
Constitution as the valid law of the State except as it thought itself compelled to strike it down because of Gray v. SandersSearch
-
performing its responsibility of electing a Governor because it is malapportioned. But this is not correct. In Toombs v. FortsonSearch
-
occasioned the election has not been filled. Page 385 U. S. 239 Our starting point is what we said in Gray v. SandersSearch
-
All the vices we found inherent in the county unit system in Gray v. SandersSearch
-
is an unconstitutional weighting of votes, having all the vices of the county unit system that we invalidated in Gray v. SandersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
fails to satisfy the basic requirements of the Equal Protection Clause, as delineated in our opinion in Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
See Lucas v. ColoradoSearch
-
In Gray v. SandersSearch
-
scheme is forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as construed by this Court. 1. Gray v. SandersSearch
-
the county unit system as part of the mechanics for election of Governor, I assume there would be no doubt that Gray v. SandersSearch
-
would invalidate the provision. Unless the Court is overruling Gray v. SandersSearch
-
and award the office to the winner or the loser of the popular election, as it may see fit. The analogy to Gray v. SandersSearch
-
The Georgia Legislature is concededly malapportioned, and is under a federal court order to reapportion itself. Toombs v. FortsonSearch
-
U. S. 210 (1966), affirming 241 F.Supp. 65 (D.C.N.D.Ga.1965). See also Fortson v. ToombsSearch
-
In Toombs v. FortsonSearch
-
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbade a State to incorporate in its election procedures. Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
this Court has held, functions only by judicial sufferance despite its constitutional infirmity. To a reader of Gray v. SandersSearch
-
and Toombs v. FortsonSearch
-
the provisions for legislative selection of a Governor and have substituted a runoff or special election. See Fortson v. ToombsSearch
-
total inability to understand how the two rulings can be reconciled. 4. In denying the applicability of Gray v. SandersSearch
-
It is no less a voting case because it deals with the election of the Governor, rather than his nomination, as in Gray v. SandersSearch
-
for example, that, in the early days of the Nation, many of the state legislatures were malapportioned. See Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Missouri v. HollandSearch
-
the courageous District Court that, in the present case, insisted upon following this Court's decision in Gray v. SandersSearch
-
s dynamic provisions with respect to the basic instrument of democracy -- the vote. 6. The Court brushes off Gray v. SandersSearch
-
Page 385 U. S. 250 so beguiled by changes in the scenery that we have lost sight of principle. See Terry v. AdamsSearch
-
U. S. 649 , 321 U. S. 661 (1944). See also Wesberry v. SandersSearch
-
by any other interpretation of our Constitution. Page 385 U. S. 251 In essence, Gray v. SandersSearch
-
Thompson v. TalmadgeSearch
-
This would resemble the presidential electoral college system. Gray v. SandersSearch
-
not indicate the constitutionality of analogous state schemes. 372 U.S. at 372 U. S. 378 . See also Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Baker v. CarrSearch
-
Harper v. VirginiaSearch
-
Only last Term, the Court held in Harper v. VirginiaSearch
-
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 'does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics' ( Lochner v. StateSearch
-
due process to a fixed catalogue of what was at a given time deemed to be the limits of fundamental rights. See Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
S. at 383 U. S. 669 . See also the classic statement by Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his dissent in Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Fortson v. MorrisSearch
-
Governor. Gray v. SandersSearch
-
Toombs v. FortsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial