Jesse Smith Henley

Summary

Jesse Smith Henley Yancey v. Faubus — Opinion of the Court (1965 | noyear)

By holding that as a federal constitutional requisite both houses of a state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis, we mean that the Equal Protection Clause requires that a State make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable. We realize that it is a practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each one has an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters.
Source: Wikisource

Jesse Smith Henley Yancey v. Faubus — Opinion of the Court (1965 | noyear)

But if, even as a result of a clearly rational state policy of according some legislative representation to political subdivisions, population is submerged as the controlling consideration in the apportionment of seats in the particular legislative body, then the right of all of the State's citizens to cast an effective and adequately weighted vote would be unconstitutionally impaired.
Source: Wikisource

Jesse Smith Henley Yancey v. Faubus — Opinion of the Court (1965 | noyear)

While the House membership, unlike that of the Senate, is flexible to some extent, we are convinced that the present guarantee of one Representative each to the smaller counties without regard to population, and the 100 member limitation on the size of the House effectively prevent equality of representation on the basis of population.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature