An Entity of Type: unit of work, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946), was a United States Supreme Court case. Writing for a 4–3 plurality, Justice Felix Frankfurter held that the federal judiciary had no power to interfere with malapportioned Congressional districts. The Court held that the Elections Clause in Article I, section IV of the U.S. Constitution left to the legislature of each state the authority to establish the time, place, and manner of holding elections for Congressional Representatives, and that only Congress (and thus not the federal judiciary) could determine whether individual state legislatures had fulfilled their responsibility to secure fair representation for citizens.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946), was a United States Supreme Court case. Writing for a 4–3 plurality, Justice Felix Frankfurter held that the federal judiciary had no power to interfere with malapportioned Congressional districts. The Court held that the Elections Clause in Article I, section IV of the U.S. Constitution left to the legislature of each state the authority to establish the time, place, and manner of holding elections for Congressional Representatives, and that only Congress (and thus not the federal judiciary) could determine whether individual state legislatures had fulfilled their responsibility to secure fair representation for citizens. However, in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) the United States Supreme Court distinguished the Colegrove decision 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. 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 cemented in the cases that followed Baker v. Carr, including Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963), which concerned state county districts; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), which concerned state legislature districts; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), which concerned U.S. Congressional districts; and Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968), which concerned local government districts, a decision which was upheld in Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989). (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 18774108 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 9819 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1112394142 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:arguedatea
  • 0001-03-07 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:arguedateb
  • 8 (xsd:integer)
dbp:argueyear
  • 1946 (xsd:integer)
dbp:case
  • Colegrove v. Green, (en)
dbp:concurrence
  • Rutledge (en)
dbp:courtlistener
dbp:decidedate
  • 0001-06-10 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:decideyear
  • 1946 (xsd:integer)
dbp:dissent
  • Black (en)
dbp:fullname
  • Colegrove et al. v. Green et al. (en)
dbp:holding
  • The remedy for unfairness in districting is to secure State legislatures that will apportion properly, or to invoke the ample powers of Congress. The Constitution has many commands that are not enforceable by courts, because they clearly fall outside the conditions and purposes that circumscribe judicial action. (en)
dbp:joindissent
  • Douglas, Murphy (en)
dbp:joinplurality
  • Reed, Burton (en)
dbp:justia
dbp:lawsapplied
dbp:litigants
  • Colegrove v. Green (en)
dbp:loc
dbp:notparticipating
  • Jackson (en)
dbp:parallelcitations
  • 66 (xsd:integer)
dbp:plurality
  • Frankfurter (en)
dbp:prior
  • Dismissed, 64 F. Supp. 632 (en)
dbp:uspage
  • 549 (xsd:integer)
dbp:usvol
  • 328 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946), was a United States Supreme Court case. Writing for a 4–3 plurality, Justice Felix Frankfurter held that the federal judiciary had no power to interfere with malapportioned Congressional districts. The Court held that the Elections Clause in Article I, section IV of the U.S. Constitution left to the legislature of each state the authority to establish the time, place, and manner of holding elections for Congressional Representatives, and that only Congress (and thus not the federal judiciary) could determine whether individual state legislatures had fulfilled their responsibility to secure fair representation for citizens. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Colegrove v. Green (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • Colegrove et al. v. Green et al. (en)
is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates of
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License