Sailors v. Board of Ed. of Kent Cty.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the principle of ‘one man, one vote’ has no relevancy” to appointive selection schemes
• holding that “unless the state ... government runs afoul of a federally protected right, it has vast leeway in the management of its internal affairs”
• holding that the one-person/one-vote requirement did not apply to an appointed county school board
• holding that a county board of education was an appointed body, and not an elected one, when its members were appointed from among a limited pool of individuals elected to other offices
• noting that states may not “manipulate [their] political subdivisions so as to defeat a federally protected right, as for example, by realigning political subdivisions so as to deny a person his vote because of race”
• rejecting equal protection arguments where Michigan allowed appointed county board to restructure elected school board's affairs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).