Baker V. Carr

What was the decision of the court in Baker V. Carr? What did the majority opinion state?

- Majority Opinion/ Decision (Baker won 6-2) - The courts can hear this case- they have the right to enforce the requirement of equal protection, even against state legislatures - There is no reason why the court cannot decide whether states are being fair or not when redistricting - While politics may enter this decision the equal protection act is judicially enforceable - The court didn't say that the districts were unconstitutional they just instructed Tennessee to make a hearing on the merit of Baker's claim and they violated Baker's 14th Amendment Rights

Under what Clause/ Amendment was Baker V. Carr decided?

Article III, Section 2, of the US Constitution which states that judicial power will extend where ever it is needed. Also the 14th Amendment which is the Equal Protection Act

What Question/ Issues are raised in Baker V. Carr?

Did the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?

Why is the ruling in Baker V. Carr important?

Redistricting rules can be settled in courts by judges

What were the case facts in Baker V. Carr?

- Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee people said that the 1901 law that was designed to appropriation seats in the General Assembly was ignored - Tennessee reappropriations efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts - The population had shifted around to different parts of the state and the big communities only had one representative and rural areas also have one representative meaning there isn't equal representations - Law makers refused to redraw the districts even though they have to every 10 years - The citizens were denied equal representation which goes against the 14th amendment

What was Carr's (respondent) argument in Baker V. Carr?

- Courts don't have the power to review districts and one branch can't tell the other branches what to do - If they decide this case the judicial branch would overstep their power - Redistricting varies among states - There is no objective way to decide what is "fair" - If the citizens want to change then they can use the standard democratic process

What was Baker's argument in Baker V. Carr?

- The courts should be able to decide this - Article III, Section 2, Constitution - Equal Representation - Just because it involves politics does not make it a political question - just instructing - Their votes do not count equally - Many of the state's legislatures benefited from not redistricting - The judicial branch can't tell the other branches of government to do something but this is not telling them to do something, it is instructing