One man, one vote#Court cases

The violation of equal representation on a seat per vote basis in various electoral systems can be measured with the Loosemore–Hanby index, the Gallagher index, and other measures of disproportionality.[https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-408/ December 2016, Canada's 2016 Special Committee On Electoral Reform, Recommendation 1][https://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/read-the-full-electoral-reform-committee-report-plus-liberal-and-ndpgreen-opinions Read the full electoral reform committee report, plus Liberal and NDP/Green opinions][https://iscanadafair.ca/gallagher-index/ What is the Gallagher Index? The Gallagher Index measures how unfair a voting system is.]

The phrase surged in English-language usage around 1880,{{Cite web |title=Google Books Ngram Viewer |url=https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=one+man+one+vote&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=on&corpus=26&smoothing=3 |access-date=2022-12-16 |website=books.google.com |language=en}} thanks in part to British trade unionist George Howell, who used the phrase "one man, one vote" in political pamphlets.George Howell (1880). "One man, one vote". Manchester Selected Pamphlets. {{JSTOR|60239578}} During the mid-to-late 20th-century period of decolonisation and the struggles for national sovereignty, this phrase became widely used in developing countries where majority populations sought to gain political power in proportion to their numbers.{{citation needed|date=August 2017}} The slogan was notably used by the anti-apartheid movement during the 1980s, which sought to end white minority rule in South Africa.{{cite book |author=Peter Duignan |url=https://archive.org/details/hopeforsouthafri00gann/page/166 |title=Hope for South Africa? |author2=Lewis H. Gann |publisher=Hoover Institution Press |year=1991 |isbn=0817989528 |page=[https://archive.org/details/hopeforsouthafri00gann/page/166 166] |url-access=registration}}{{Cite book|last1=Bond|first1=Larry|last2=Larkin|first2=Patrick|title=Vortex|location=United States|language=en|publisher=Little, Brown and Warner Books|date=June 1991|isbn=0-446-51566-3|oclc=23286496|page=37|title-link=Vortex (Bond and Larkin novel)}}{{Cite AV media|first=Jeffrey|last=Boam|title=Lethal Weapon 2|date=July 1989|publisher=Warner Bros.}}

In the United States, the "one person, one vote" principle was invoked in a series of cases by the Warren Court in the 1960s during the height of related civil rights activities.Richard H. Fallon, Jr. (2013). The Dynamic Constitution. Cambridge University Press, 196.Douglas J. Smith (2014). On Democracy's Doorstep: The Inside Story of How the Supreme Court Brought "One Person, One Vote" to the United States. Farrar, Straus and Giroux."One person, one vote", in David Andrew Schultz (2010). Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. Infobase Publishing, 526.{{efn|Justice Douglas, Gray v. Sanders (1963): "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."C. J. Warren, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 558 (1964) (quoting Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963)), cited in [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quotation/%5Bfield_short_title-raw%5D_185 "One-person, one-vote rule"], Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School.}}

By the second half of the 20th century, many states had neglected to redistrict for decades, because their legislatures were dominated by rural interests. But during the 20th century, population had increased in urban, industrialized areas. In addition to applying the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion (5–4) led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures, unlike the U.S. Congress, needed to have representation in both houses that was based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after the decennial censuses.{{Cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/23|title=Reynolds v. Sims|website=Oyez|language=en|access-date=2019-09-21}} Some states had established an upper house based on an equal number of representatives to be elected from each county, modelled after the US Senate. Because of changes following industrialization and urbanization, most population growth had been in cities, and the bicameral state legislatures gave undue political power to rural counties. In the 1964 Wesberry v. Sanders decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that equality of voting—one person, one vote—means that "the weight and worth of the citizens' votes as nearly as is practicable must be the same". They ruled that states must draw federal congressional districts containing roughly equal represented populations.

This phrase was traditionally used in the context of demands for suffrage reform. Historically the emphasis within the House of Commons was on representing areas: counties, boroughs and, later on, universities. The entitlement to vote for the Members of Parliament representing the constituencies varied widely, with different qualifications over time, such as owning property of a certain value, holding an apprenticeship, qualifying for paying the local-government rates, or holding a degree from the university in question. Those who qualified for the vote in more than one constituency were entitled to vote in each constituency, while many adults did not qualify for the vote at all. Plural voting was also present in local government, whereby the owners of business property qualified for votes in the relevant wards.{{fact|date=May 2024}}

Reformers argued that Members of Parliament and other elected officials should represent citizens equally, and that each voter should be entitled to exercise the vote once in an election. Successive Reform Acts by 1950 had both extended the franchise eventually to almost all adult citizens (barring convicts, lunatics and members of the House of Lords), and also reduced and finally eliminated plural voting for Westminster elections. Plural voting for local-government elections outside the City of London was not abolished until the Representation of the People Act 1969.{{cite book |last=Halsey |first=Albert Henry |date=1988 |title=British Social Trends since 1900 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=x3euCwAAQBAJ&q=%22Representation+of+the+people+act+1969%22+%22business+vote%22&pg=PA298 |publisher=Springer |page=298 |isbn=9781349194667 |author-link=A. H. Halsey}}{{cite hansard |jurisdiction=United Kingdom |title=City of London (Ward Elections) Bill |url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1999/feb/24/city-of-london-ward-elections-bill-by#S6CV0326P0_19990224_HOC_414 |house=House of Commons |date=24 February 1999 |column=452 |speaker=Peter Brooke}}

When Northern Ireland was established in 1921, it adopted the same political system then in place for the Westminster Parliament and British local government. But the Parliament of Northern Ireland did not follow Westminster in changes to the franchise from 1945. As a result, into the 1960s, plural voting was still allowed not only for local government (as it was for local government in Great Britain), but also for the Parliament of Northern Ireland. This meant that in local council elections (as in Great Britain), ratepayers and their spouses, whether renting or owning the property, could vote, and company directors had an extra vote by virtue of their company's status. However, unlike the situation in Great Britain, non-ratepayers did not have a vote in local government elections. The franchise for elections to the Parliament of Northern Ireland had been extended in 1928 to all adult citizens who were not disqualified, at the same time as the franchise for elections to Westminster. But, university representation and the business vote continued for elections to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland until 1969. They were abolished in 1948 for elections to the UK House of Commons (including Westminster seats in Northern Ireland). Historians and political scholars have debated the extent to which the franchise for local government contributed to unionist electoral success in controlling councils in nationalist-majority areas.{{cite web| url = http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/whyte.htm| title = How much discrimination was there under the unionist regime, 1921–1968? | access-date = 2007-08-30| author = John H. Whyte| author-link = John H. Whyte| publisher = Conflict Archive on the Internet}}

Based on a number of inequities, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association was founded in 1967. It had five primary demands, and added the demand that each citizen in Northern Ireland be afforded the same number of votes for local government elections (as stated above, this was not yet the case anywhere in the United Kingdom). The slogan "one man, one vote" became a rallying cry for this campaign.{{citation needed|date=August 2017}} The Parliament of Northern Ireland voted to update the voting rules for elections to the Northern Ireland House of Commons, which were implemented for the 1969 Northern Ireland general election, and for local government elections, which was done by the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/apni/1969/26/introduction Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1969], passed on 25 November 1969.{{fact|date=May 2024}}

File:Sncc one man one vote.png

The United States Constitution requires a decennial census for the purpose of assuring fair apportionment of seats in the United States House of Representatives among the states, based on their population. Reapportionment has generally been conducted without incident with the exception of the reapportionment that should have followed the 1920 census, which was effectively skipped pending resolution by the Reapportionment Act of 1929. State legislatures, however, initially established election of congressional representatives from districts that were often based on traditional counties or parishes that had preceded founding of the new government. The question then arose as to whether the legislatures were required to ensure that House districts were roughly equal in population and to draw new districts to accommodate demographic changes.

Some U.S. states redrew their House districts every ten years to reflect changes in population patterns; many did not. Some never redrew them, except when it was mandated by reapportionment of Congress and a resulting change in the number of seats to which that state was entitled in the House of Representatives. In many states, both North and South, this inaction resulted in a skewing of influence for voters in some districts over those in others, generally with a bias toward rural districts. For example, if the 2nd congressional district eventually had a population of 1.5 million, but the 3rd had only 500,000, then, in effect – since each district elected the same number of representatives – a voter in the 3rd district had three times the voting power of a 2nd-district voter.

Alabama's state legislature resisted redistricting from 1910 to 1972 (when forced by federal court order). As a result, rural residents retained a wildly disproportionate amount of power in a time when other areas of the state became urbanized and industrialized, attracting greater populations. Such urban areas were under-represented in the state legislature and underserved; their residents had difficulty getting needed funding for infrastructure and services. Such areas paid far more in taxes to the state than they received in benefits in relation to the population.[http://www.charlestoncounty.org/MAP/FinalReport/pages219-238.pdf Charlie B. Tyler, "County Government in the Palmetto State"], University of South Carolina, 1998, p. 221

The Constitution incorporates the result of the Great Compromise, which established representation for the U.S. Senate. Each state was equally represented in the Senate with two representatives, without regard to population. The Founding Fathers considered this principle of such importance{{cn|date=August 2021}} that they included a clause in the Constitution to prohibit any state from being deprived of equal representation in the Senate without its permission; see Article V of the United States Constitution. For this reason, "one person, one vote" has never been implemented in the U.S. Senate, in terms of representation by states.

When states established their legislatures, they often adopted a bicameral model based on colonial governments or the federal government. Many copied the Senate principle, establishing an upper house based on geography – for instance, a state senate with one representative drawn from each county. By the 20th century, this often resulted in state senators having widely varying amounts of political power, with ones from rural areas having votes equal in power to those of senators representing much greater urban populations.

Activism in the Civil Rights Movement to restore the ability of African Americans in the South to register and vote highlighted other voting inequities across the country. In 1964–1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed, in part to enforce the constitutional voting rights of African Americans.{{Cite web|url=https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/civilrights/prize.htm|title=We Shall Overcome – The Players|website=www.nps.gov|access-date=2019-10-05}} Numerous court challenges were raised, including in Alabama, to correct the decades in which state legislative districts had not been redefined or reapportioned, resulting in lack of representation for many residents.

In {{ussc|name=Colegrove v. Green|328|549|1946|el=no}} the United States Supreme Court held in a 4–3 plurality decision that Article I, Section 4 left to the legislature of each state the authority to establish the time, place, and manner of holding elections for representatives.

However, in {{ussc|name=Baker v. Carr|369|186|1962|el=no}} the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren overturned the previous decision in Colegrove 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.Stephen Ansolabehere, James M. Snyder (2008). The End of Inequality: One Person, One Vote and the Transformation of American Politics. Norton.{{Cite news |last1=Goldman |first1=Ari L. |date=21 November 1986 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/21/nyregion/one-man-one-vote-decades-of-court-decisions.html |title=ONE MAN, ONE VOTE: DECADES OF COURT DECISIONS|work=The New York Times}} 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 affirmed by the Warren Court in the landmark cases that followed Baker, including {{ussc|name=Gray v. Sanders|372|368|1963|el=no}}, which concerned the county unit system in Georgia; {{ussc|name=Reynolds v. Sims|377|533|1964|el=no}} which concerned state legislature districts; {{ussc|name=Wesberry v. Sanders|376|1|1964|el=no}}, which concerned U.S. congressional districts; and {{ussc|name=Avery v. Midland County|390|474|1968|el=no}} which concerned local government districts.{{Cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/23|title=Reynolds v. Sims|website=Oyez|language=en|access-date=2019-09-17}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule|title=one-person, one-vote rule|last=Anonymous|date=2010-08-19|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en|access-date=2019-09-17}}

The Warren Court's decision was upheld in {{ussc|name=Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris|489|688|1989|el=no}}.{{cite magazine| url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,838157,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090902233322/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,838157,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=September 2, 2009 |magazine=Time |title=The Supreme Court: One-Man, One-Vote, Locally |date=1968-04-12 |access-date=2010-05-20}} {{ussc|name=Evenwel v. Abbott|578|2016|el=no}}, said states may use total population in drawing districts.

• The slogan "one man, one vote" has occasionally been misunderstood as requiring plurality voting; however, court cases in the United States have consistently ruled against this interpretation the admissibility of other rules.
• The constitutionality of non-plurality systems has subsequently been upheld by several federal courts, against challenges.{{Cite web|last1=Collins|first1=Steve|last2=Journal|first2=Sun|date=2018-12-13|title=Federal court rules against Bruce Poliquin's challenge of ranked-choice voting|url=https://www.sunjournal.com/2018/12/13/federal-court-rules-against-bruce-poliquins-challenge-of-ranked-choice-voting/|access-date=2018-12-19|website=Lewiston Sun Journal}}{{cite web|title=Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F. 3d 1098 (2011)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=dudum+v+arntz&hl=en&as_sdt=2003&case=438379963242494061&scilh=0|access-date=2016-04-01|publisher=United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit}} In 2018, a federal court ruled on the constitutionality of Maine's use of ranked-choice voting, stating that "'one person, one vote' does not stand in opposition to ranked voting, so long as all electors are treated equally at the ballot."{{cite web|author1=U.S. District Judge Lance Walker|date=2018-12-13|title=Read the federal judge's decision on Poliquin's ranked-choice challenge|url=https://bangordailynews.com/2018/12/13/politics/read-the-federal-judges-decision-on-poliquins-ranked-choice-challenge/|access-date=2019-02-10|website=Bangor Daily News|page=21}}
• In 1975, a Michigan state court clarified that one-man, one-vote does not mandate plurality vote, and upheld Instant Runoff as permitted by the state constitution.[http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=397 Stephenson v Ann Arbor Board of Canvassers, fairvote.org], accessed 6 November 2013.
• By contrast, the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany ruled that the overhang mandates at the time did violate the principle of equal voting rights, as they assign some voters a negative voting weight.{{cite web | url=https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2008/bvg08-068.html | title=Provisions of the Federal Electoral Act from which the effect of negative voting weight emerges unconstitutional | language=en | publisher=Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) | date=3 July 2008 | accessdate=19 May 2024 }}
• Training Wheels for Citizenship, a failed 2004 initiative in California, attempted to give minors between 14 and 17 years of age (who otherwise cannot vote) a fractional vote in state elections. Among the criticisms leveled at the proposed initiative was that it violated the "one man, one vote" principle.[http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0312/p01s03-uspo.html "Should 14-year-olds vote? OK, how about a quarter of a vote?"], Daniel B. Wood, Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 12, 2004.
• Courts have established that special-purpose districts must also follow the one person, one vote rule.Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S. Ct. 1114, 20 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1968)Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355, 101 S. Ct. 1811, 68 L. Ed. 2d 150 (1981)Bjornestad v. Hulse, 229 Cal. App. 3d 1568, 281 Cal. Rptr. 548 (1991)Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 109 S. Ct. 1433, 103 L. Ed. 2d 717 (1989)Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50, 90 S. Ct. 791, 25 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1970)Hellebust v. Brownback, 824 F. Supp. 1511 (D. Kan. 1993)Kessler v. Grand Central District Management Association, 158 F.3d 92. (2d Cir. 1998)Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S. Ct. 136, 12 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1964)Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, 410 U.S. 719 (1973)
• Due to treaties signed by the United States in 1830 and 1835, two Native American tribes (the Cherokee and Choctaw) each hold the right to a non-voting delegate position in the House of Representatives.{{cite news|title=The Cherokee Nation Is Entitled to a Delegate in Congress. But Will They Finally Send One?|first=Tristan|last=Ahtone|date=January 4, 2017|work=YES! Magazine|location=Bainbridge Island, Washington|url=https://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/the-cherokee-nation-is-entitled-to-a-delegate-in-congress-but-will-they-finally-send-one-20170104|access-date=January 4, 2019}}{{cite book|last=Pommersheim|first=Frank|title=Broken Landscape: Indians, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DbNdwTo2ENEC&pg=PA333|access-date=January 4, 2019|date=September 2, 2009|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford, England|isbn=978-0-19-970659-4|page=333}} As of 2019, only the Cherokee have attempted to exercise that right.{{Cite web|url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-cherokee-nation-wants-a-representative-in-congress/ar-AAGi9I6?ocid=ob-tw-enus-677|title=The Cherokee Nation wants a representative in Congress|website=www.msn.com}}{{cite news|title=Citing treaties, Cherokees call on Congress to seat delegate from tribe|date=August 23, 2019|last=Krehbiel-Burton|first=Lenzy|work=Tulsa World|location=Tulsa, Oklahoma|url=https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/citing-treaties-cherokees-call-on-congress-to-seat-delegate-from/article_9da9a5d4-69a1-52d8-bad6-beea75a2e17e.html|access-date=August 24, 2019}} Because all tribal governments related to the two in question exist within present-day state boundaries, it has been suggested that such an arrangement could potentially violate the "one man, one vote" principle by granting a "super-vote"; a Cherokee or Choctaw voter would have two House representatives (state and tribal), whereas any other American would only have one.{{cite journal |last=Rosser |first=Ezra |date=7 Nov 2005 |title=The Nature of Representation: The Cherokee Right to a Congressional Delegate |journal=Boston University Public Interest Law Journal |volume=15 |issue=91 |pages=91–152 |ssrn=842647 }}

In Australia, one vote, one value is a democratic principle, applied in electoral laws governing redistributions of electoral divisions of the House of Representatives. The principle calls for all electoral divisions to have the same number of enrolled voters (not residents or population), within a specified percentage of variance. The electoral laws of the federal House of Representatives, and of the state and territory parliaments, follow the principle, with a few exceptions. The principle does not apply to the Senate because, under the Australian constitution, each state is entitled to the same number of senators, irrespective of the population of the state.

Currently, for the House of Representatives, the number of enrolled voters in each division in a state or territory can vary by up to 10% from the average quota for the state or territory, and the number of voters can vary by up to 3.5% from the average projected enrolment three-and-a-half years into the future.{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|cea1918233|Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918|73}} Redistribution of State. The allowable quota variation of the number of electors in each division was reduced from 20% to 10% by the Commonwealth Electoral Act (No. 2) 1973, passed at the joint sitting of Parliament in 1974.{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|num_act|cea21973260|Commonwealth Electoral Act (No. 2) 1973|4}} Re-distribution. The change was instigated by the Whitlam Labor government.

However, for various reasons, such as the constitutional requirement that Tasmania must have at least five lower house members, larger seats like Cowper (New South Wales) comprise almost double the electors of smaller seats like Solomon in the Northern Territory.

Historically, all states (other than Tasmania) have had some form of malapportionment, but electoral reform in recent decades has resulted in electoral legislation and policy frameworks based on the "one vote, one value" principle. However, in the Western Australian and Queensland Legislative Assemblies, seats covering areas greater than {{convert|100000|km2|sqmi|-2}} may have fewer electors than the general tolerance would otherwise allow.{{cite Legislation AU|WA|act|ea1907103|Electoral Act 1907|16G}} Districts, how State to be divided into.{{cite Legislation AU|Qld|act|ea1992103|Electoral Act 1992|45}} – Proposed electoral redistribution must be within numerical limits.

The following chart documents the years that the upper and lower houses of each Australian state parliament replaced malapportionment with the 'one vote, one value' principle.

The Whitlam Labor government proposed to amend the Constitution in a referendum in 1974 to require the use of population to determine the size of electorates rather than alternative methods of distributing seats, such as geographical size. The bill was not passed by the Senate and instead the referendum was put to voters using the deadlock provision in Section 128.{{cite web |last=Richardson |first=Jack |date=31 October 2000 |title=Resolving Deadlocks in the Australian Parliament |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0001/01RP09 |access-date=2021-10-20 |work=Research Paper 9 2000–01 |publisher=Parliamentary Library}} The referendum was not carried, obtaining a majority in just one State and achieving 47.20% support, an overall minority of 407,398 votes.{{refn|Handbook of the 44th Parliament (2014) {{cite web |url=http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fnewhandbook%2F2014-10-31%2F0049%22 |title=Part 5 – Referendums and Plebiscites – Referendum results |publisher=Parliamentary Library of Australia}}|name=Handbook}}

In 1988, the Hawke Labor government submitted a referendum proposal to enshrine the principle in the Australian Constitution.{{cite book |last=Singleton |first=Gwynneth |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DiriBAAAQBAJ |title=Australian Political Institutions |author2=Don Aitkin |author3=Brian Jinks |author4=John Warhurst |publisher=Pearson Higher Education AU |year=2012 |isbn=978-1442559493 |page=271 |access-date=5 August 2015}} The referendum question came about due to the widespread malapportionment and gerrymandering which was endemic during Joh Bjelke-Petersen's term as the Queensland Premier. The proposal was opposed by both the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. The referendum proposal was not carried, obtaining a majority in no States and achieving just 37.6% support, an overall minority of 2,335,741.{{refn|name=Handbook}}

• Democracy Index
• Democratization
• Electoral college
• Anonymity (social choice)
• Proportional representation
• Universal suffrage

{{notelist}}

{{Reflist}}

{{Suffrage}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:One man, one vote}}

Category:Suffrage

Category:Political catchphrases

Category:1880s quotations

Category:Democracy

Category:United States one person, one vote legal doctrine

Category:Principles