to the Government by history and -the Constitution.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 912, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995) (quoting Metro Broad., Inc. v. F.C.C., 497 U.S. 547, 604, 110 S.Ct. 2997, 111 L.Ed.2d 445 (1990)(O’Connor, J., dissenting)). By contrast, in one-person, one-vote cases — in which a plaintiff in an overpopulated district alleges that she is injured because the" districting plan dilutes her vote relative to voters in underpopulated districts — the plaintiff may challenge the districting plan on a statewide basis. See, e.g., Wesberry, 376 U.S. at 7, 84 S.Ct. 526 (permitting voters in a single overpopulated district to raise one-person, one-vote challengé to districting plan as a whole); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 370, 375, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963) (<HOLDING>); Baker, 369 U.S. at 187, 206-07, 82 S.Ct. 691
holding that state may not compel political parties to allow nonmembers to vote in primary elections holding that plaintiff who was qualified to vote in primary and general elections in fulton county georgia had standing to lodge statewide challenge to georgias county unit system as a basis for counting votes in a democratic primary for the nomination of a united states senator and statewide officers holding a county and a road district had standing to sue state highway commission and county tax collector based on their interest in and control over the public roads of the county holding that state may not compel political party to allow nonmembers to vote in its primary elections recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions 