

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The landmark supreme court case of baker v carr (1961), which established the 'one person, one vote' standard for legislative apportionment in the united states. The synopsis of the case, its impact on american politics, and related cases such as reynolds v sims (1964).
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 2
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
S y n o p s i s o f t h e C a s e Charles Baker was a Republican who lived in Shelby County, Tennessee, and had served as the mayor of Millington, Tennessee, near Memphis. The Tennessee State Constitution required that legislative districts for the Tennessee General Assembly be redrawn every ten years according to the federal census to provide for districts of substantially equal population (as was to be done for congressional districts). Baker's complaint was that Tennessee had not redistricted since 1901, in response to the 1900 census. It is now 1959. By the time of Baker's lawsuit, the population had shifted such that his district in Shelby County had about ten times as many residents as some of the rural districts. The votes of rural citizens were overrepresented compared to those of urban citizens. Baker's argument was that this discrepancy was causing him to fail to receive the "equal protection of the laws" required by the 14 th^ Amendment. Joe Carr was sued in his position as Secretary of State for Tennessee. Carr was not the person who set the district lines – the state legislature had done that – but was sued ex officio as the person who was ultimately responsible for the conduct of elections in the state and for the publication of district maps. The state of Tennessee argued that the composition of legislative districts was essentially a political question, not a judicial one. J u d g e m e n t: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the redistricting of state legislative districts is not a political question, and thus is justiciable by the federal courts (thereby allowing federal courts to intervene). C o u r t J u d i c i a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ➢ The decision of Baker v. Carr was one of the most wrenching in the Court's history. The case had to be put over for re-argument because in conference no clear majority emerged for either side of the case. (Justice Whittaker was so torn over the case that he eventually had to recuse himself for health reasons.) ➢ The Court split 6 to 2 in ruling that Baker's case was justiciable, producing, in addition to the majority opinion, three concurring opinions and two dissenting opinions. ➢ Court said that Tennessee refusal to follow the expressed law of remapping the districts was in direct violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. ➢ Brennan reformulated the political question doctrine, identifying six factors to help in determining which questions were "political" in nature. Cases that are political in nature are marked by:
K e y Q u o t e s f o r t h e D i s s e n t i n g O p i n i o n s ➢ Justice Frankfurter, joined by Justice Harlan, dissented vigorously and at length, arguing that the Court had cast aside history and judicial restraint, and violated the separation of powers between legislatures and Courts. R e l a t e d C a s e s Reynolds v Sims (1964). The Court struck down state senate inequality, basing their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote." Baker v Carr gave the Court jurisdiction over the questions in Reynolds, and the Justices build on the ‘one man, one vote’ concept introduced in Baker. Other cases similarly affected were Wesberry v Sanders (1964) , Gray v Sanders (1963) and Avery v Midland County (1968)