Brown v. Thomson - Significance, The Battle For Equal Representation, Minority Opinion, Impact
Margaret R. Brown, et al.
Thyra Thomson, Wyoming Secretary of State
Wyoming's reapportionment plan to allocate one seat to Niobrara County in its House of Representatives was unconstitutional and substantially weakened the voting power of the plaintiff because it gave a small number of people "super" voting strength and totally disregarded a fundamental rule: one person, one vote.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Suellen L. Davidson
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Randall T. Cox
Justices for the Court
Warren E. Burger, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
22 June 1983
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the Wyoming reapportionment plan for its House of Representatives, which allocated one seat to underpopulated counties, did not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
- Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971).
- White v. Register, 412 U.S. 755 (1973).
- Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407 (1977).
- Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983).
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- N.J. Building Trades Council v. City of Camden - Significance, Further Readings
- Brown v. Hartlage - Significance, Free Speech Or Buying Votes?, The Right To Be Wrong, Judgment And A Lone Dissenter
- Brown v. Thomson - Significance
- Brown v. Thomson - The Battle For Equal Representation
- Brown v. Thomson - Minority Opinion
- Brown v. Thomson - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias