A reapportionment decision, Reynolds v. Sims, led to the one-man, one-vote principle that controls legislative apportionment.

The outcome foreshadowed the one-man, one-vote principle applied to Congressional districts by a Supreme Court ruling in 1964.

The Appellate Division said the distinction violated the one-man, one-vote principle.

In 1987, a three-judge panel ruled that the plan was unconstitutional violation of the one-person, one-vote principle because it did not equitably reflect the population distribution.

The Court ruled years ago that judicial elections were not subject to the one-person, one-vote principle derived from the Constitution's equal protection guarantee.

The premise is that without certain powers, the board would not be considered a legislative body and so would not come under the one-person, one-vote principle.

Third-world nations, however, worry that the United States wants to end Unesco's one-nation, one-vote principle.

And, even worse, the one-man, one-vote principle for which our democracy stands is violated.

Ultimate authority rests with the enterprise's workers, following the one-person, one-vote principle.

How many are run on a one-person, one-vote principle?