Which case extended the 'one person, one vote' principle to the U.S. House of Representatives?

• A. Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
• B. Baker v. Carr (1962)
• C. Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)
• D. Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that each vote should carry roughly the same weight by ensuring districts are population-equal. After courts accepted that redistricting issues are justiciable, the next step was applying the one person, one vote standard to the federal level. Wesberry v. Sanders does exactly that for the U.S. House of Representatives. The Court ruled that congressional districts must be drawn so populations are nearly identical, so every citizen’s vote has equal influence in selecting members of the House. When Georgia’s plan produced large population imbalances among districts, it diluted some voters’ representation, which violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The decision thus extended the one person, one vote principle from state legislatures to the national legislature, requiring population equality across congressional districts.

For context, Baker v. Carr established that redistricting issues were justiciable, opening the path for courts to review district maps; Reynolds v. Sims extended the principle to state legislative districts. Shaw v. Reno later focused on racial gerrymandering, but the core expansion to the House is Wesberry v. Sanders, which enshrined equal-population districts for federal representation.