Skip to content

Baker vs. Carr

Background

  • Name of the Case: Baker v. Carr
  • Year Decided: 1962
  • Facts: Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. They argued that Tennessee's reapportionment efforts did not account for significant growth and population shifts, thus diluting their votes in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Issue: The primary legal issue was whether the federal courts had the jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of state legislative apportionment.
  • Decision: The Supreme Court held that federal courts have the authority to enforce the requirement of equal protection of the law against state officials who draw electoral districts.
  • Majority Decision Reasoning: The Court found that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue, meaning it was appropriate for judicial consideration. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause provided a judicially enforceable right to vote free from grossly distorted legislative apportionment.
  • Dissenting Opinion Reasoning: Justice Frankfurter and others dissented, arguing that the Court was overreaching into a "political thicket" of state legislative apportionment, which should be resolved through the political process, not the judiciary.
  • Impact of the Case: Baker v. Carr was a landmark decision that opened the door for federal courts to adjudicate apportionment issues, leading to the principle of "one person, one vote." This principle required legislative districts to have roughly equal populations, ensuring more equitable representation.

Questions

  • Why did the district court make a mistake in dismissing this case?

    The district court initially dismissed the case on the grounds that it represented a "political question" that was not within the judiciary's authority to resolve. The Supreme Court found this to be a mistake because the issue at hand involved a constitutional right—the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—which provided a clear judicial standard and thus was within the courts' purview to address.

  • Why was Baker entitled to bring the case under the 14th amendment?

    Baker was entitled to bring the case under the Fourteenth Amendment because the issue involved the Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees individuals the right to equal protection under the law. The failure of Tennessee to reapportion legislative districts in light of population changes arguably diluted the electoral weight of Baker's and others' votes, thus denying them equal protection.

  • The holding of the Supreme Court did not require Shelby County's district to be redrawn. What happens after a case is remanded?

    When a case is remanded, it is sent back to the lower court for further action consistent with the higher court's decision. In the case of Baker v. Carr, remanding meant that the lower court was tasked with reviewing the reapportionment issue in light of the Supreme Court's decision that such issues were justiciable. The lower court would then determine the specifics of how Tennessee's districts should be redrawn to comply with the principles of equal representation.

  • What is gerrymandering and how does it create districts that are "an atrocity of ingenuity?"

    Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage by diluting the voting power of the opposition. This can create districts with bizarre shapes or compositions that do not reflect natural or community boundaries, often described as "an atrocity of ingenuity" because they can be cleverly designed to achieve partisan goals, undermining the principle of fair and equal representation.

  • Why are the dissenters wary of allowing federal courts to make decisions about legislative districts?

    The dissenters were wary because they believed such decisions entangled the courts in inherently political questions that should be resolved through the political process, not judicial intervention. They feared that involving the judiciary in apportionment could undermine the separation of powers and the principle of federalism by allowing federal courts to make decisions that could be seen as legislative in nature.

  • What problem in carrying out this decision do the dissenting justices anticipate? How do these problems relate to the principle of federalism?

    The dissenting justices anticipated difficulties in defining judicially manageable standards for fair apportionment and in enforcing such standards without entering into the political domain of state governance. These problems relate to the principle of federalism by highlighting concerns over federal courts intervening in matters traditionally within the state's purview, potentially upsetting the balance of power between state and federal governments.