# Gray v. Sanders

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 18, 1963 · 372 U.S. 368

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422552

## Case

- **Full name:** GRAY, CHAIRMAN OF THE GEORGIA STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, Et Al. v. SANDERS
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 18, 1963
- **Citations:** 372 U.S. 368; 83 S. Ct. 801; 9 L. Ed. 2d 821; 1963 U.S. LEXIS 1944
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stewart
- **Judges:** Stewart, Harlan, Douglas
- **Cited by:** 630 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422552

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “appellee, like any person whose right to vote is impaired, has standing to sue” (citations omitted)
- holding that “[t]he concept of ‘we the people’ under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications,” and “[t]he idea that every voter is equal to every other voter in his State, when he casts his ballot in f…
- explaining constitutional USCA11 Case: 22-14031 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2025 Page: 37 of 112 22-14031 Opinion of the Court 37 guarantees extend to “any preliminary election that in fact deter- mines the true weight a vote will have”
- stating that "any person whose right to vote is impaired has standing to sue" (citation omitted)
- explaining that the system “weight[ed] the rural vote more heavily than the urban vote and weight[ed] some small rural counties heavier than other larger rural counties”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Stewart,
whom Mr. Justice Clark joins, concurring.
In joining the opinion and judgment of the Court, I emphasize what — but for my Brother Harlan’s dissent— I should have thought would be apparent to all who read the Court’s opinion. This case does not involve the *382 validity of a State’s apportionment of geographic constituencies from which representatives to the State’s legislative assembly are chosen, nor any of the problems under the Equal Protection Clause which such litigation would present. We do not deal here with “the basic ground rules implementing Baker v. Carr.” This case, on the contrary, involves statewide elections of a United States Senator and of state executive and judicial officers responsible to a statewide constituency. Within a given constituency, there can be room for but a single constitutional rule — one voter, one vote. United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422552. Public record. Not legal advice.