What was the majority opinion in Baker v Carr?
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. delivered the majority opinion of the court. He wrote “We conclude that the complaint’s allegations of a denial of equal protection present a justiciable constitutional cause of action upon which appellants are entitled to a trial and a decision.
What was the question in Baker v Carr?
Baker v. Carr (1961) Questions 1. In 1960, how long had it been since redrawing of the of the state had been completed in the state of Tennessee? What had happened to the population of the state in those years? It had been 50 years since the redrawing of the state had been completed in the state of Tennessee.
What was the issue in the Baker v Carr case?
Procedural History
- Baker v. Carr went to district court. The court held that Baker v. Carr lacked jurisdiction. ...
- The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on April 19-20th, 1961. ...
- It was set to be reargued on May 1, 1961
- Reargued on October 9, 1961
- The case was decided on by the Supreme Court on March 26, 1962.
What was the outcome of Baker v Carr?
The result of Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964) was the fundamental concept a. that legislatures were to be more responsive to state problems and therefore to meet a minimum of fourmonths a year Real financial power moved from the states to the national government by virtue of a. McCulloch v.
What was Carr's argument in Baker v Carr?
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 Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant Joe Carr was sued in his position as Secretary of State for Tennessee.
What arguments were made on behalf of Tennessee Baker v Carr?
The voters argued that Tennessee's system of state legislative apportionment debased their votes under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Tennessee was using an electoral system that gave weight to counties as geographical units rather than equalizing population among districts.
What was the majority opinion in Baker v Carr?
Justice Brennan wrote the majority opinion of the court, essentially stating that dilution of votes was, in fact, denying the residents of Tennessee equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Douglas wrote a concurring opinion, stating that voters should have a full constitutional value of their vote.
What is Baker's complaint in Baker Vs Carr?
The complaint, Baker alleged that by means of a 1901 statute of Tennessee apportioning the members of the General Assembly among the state's 95 counties, "these plaintiffs and others similarly situated, are denied the equal protection of the laws accorded them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the ...
What was the decision in Baker v Carr quizlet?
The Supreme Court decided for Baker. They ruled that federal courts have the authority to enforce the 14th amendment if the state legislative districts are disproportionately populated.
What did the Baker decision say you could successfully do?
Court gained power to rule on apportionment laws. Bicameral states became equally apportioned. Each persons vote became protected under the 14th amendment and the "one person, one vote" policy. Bias reapportionment was totally done away with and changed the fundamental voting structure of the United States.
Which of the following best describes the holding in Baker v Carr 1961?
Which of the following best describes the holding in Baker v. Carr (1961)? Unequal representation of citizens in legislative districts is unconstitutional and may be reviewed by the courts.
Who won baker or Carr?
A group of urban voters including Memphis resident Charles Baker sued Tennessee Secretary of State Joseph Carr for more equal representation. In a 6-2 decision, Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was valid grounds to bring a reapportionment lawsuit.
Which of the following is a consequence of the ruling established in Baker v Carr?
Which of the following is a consequence of the ruling established in Baker v. Carr? When redistricting, states must create relatively similarly sized districts to ensure voter equality.
What important principle did the Supreme Court established in the cases of Baker v Carr and Reynolds v Sims?
In Reynolds v. Sims (1964), using the Supreme Court's precedent set in Baker v. Carr (1962), Warren held that representation in state legislatures must be apportioned equally on the basis of population rather than geographical areas, remarking that “legislators represent people, not acres or trees.” In…
What important principle did the Supreme Court established in the cases of Baker v Carr and Reynolds v Sims?
In Reynolds v. Sims (1964), using the Supreme Court's precedent set in Baker v. Carr (1962), Warren held that representation in state legislatures must be apportioned equally on the basis of population rather than geographical areas, remarking that “legislators represent people, not acres or trees.” In…
What was the outcome of Baker v Carr 1962 quizlet?
Decision: The Warren Court reached a 6-2 verdict in favor of Baker. A lack of political question, previous court intervention in apportionment affairs and equal protection under the 14th amendment gave the court enough reason to rule on legislative apportionment. Court gained power to rule on apportionment laws.
How was the 14th Amendment violate in Baker v Carr?
The case was brought by a group of Tennessee voters who alleged that the apportionment of Tennessee's state legislature failed to account for significant population variations between districts, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution.
What precedent was set in the Baker v Carr case?
Carr (1962) established the right of federal courts to review redistricting issues, which had previously been termed "political questions" outside the courts' jurisdiction.
What is Baker v. Carr?
Baker v. Carr outlined that legislative apportionment is a justiciable non-political question. It established the right of federal courts to review redistricting issues, when just a few years earlier such matter were categorized as “political questions” outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
Why did Baker argue that rural votes essentially counted more denying him equal protection of the law?
Baker’s argument stated that because the districts had not been redrawn and the rural district had ten times fewer people, the rural votes essentially counted more denying him equal protection of the law.
When is an issue considered a non-justiciable political question?
An issue is considered a non-justiciable political question when one of six tests are met: Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to another political branch ; Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue;
Is Baker v. Carr a political question?
Baker petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court held that an equal protection challenge to malapportionment of state legislatures is not a political question because is fails to meet any of the six political question tests and is, therefore, justiciable. Baker v. Carr Case Brief.
Does Baker have standing to challenge apportionment statutes?
The jurisdiction is proper over the subject matter, Baker states a justiciable cause of action under which he should be entitled to relief, and. Baker has standing to challenge Tennessee’s apportionment statutes. In addition, the proper place for this trial is the trial court, not here.
What was the Baker v Carr case?
Carr, in which the Court held that the failure of the legislature of Tennessee to reapportion state legislative districts to take into account significant changes in district populations had effectively reduced the weight of votes cast in more populous districts, amounting to a…
What did the Supreme Court say in the Baker case?
In the Baker case, however, the court held that each vote should carry equal weight regardless of the voter’s place of residence.
What did Carr say about the inequitable representation of the legislature?
Carr (1962; the first of a series of legislative reapportionment cases in the 1960s), he unsuccessfully asserted that inequitable representation in legislatures is a “political controversy” not subject to the federal judicial power.….
What did the Baker case mean?
In the Baker case, however, the court held that each vote should carry equal weight regardless of the voter’s place of residence. Thus the legislature of Tennessee had violated the constitutionally guaranteed right of equal protection ( q.v. ).
What case was Reynolds v. Sims?
Citing the Baker case as a precedent, the court held in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) that both houses of bicameral legislatures had to be apportioned according to population. It remanded numerous other apportionment cases to lower courts for reconsideration in light of the Baker and Reynolds decisions.
Why was Baker v. Carr put over?
The case had to be put over for reargument because in conference no clear majority emerged for either side of the case. Associate Justice Charles Evans Whittaker was so torn over the case that he eventually had to recuse himself for health reasons. The arduous decisional process in Baker is often blamed for Whittaker's subsequent health problems, which forced him to retire from the Court in 1962.
What is Baker v Carr?
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question, thus enabling federal courts to hear redistricting cases. The court summarized its Baker holding in a later decision as follows: "Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ...
What is the Baker redistricting standard?
The Court formulated the famous " one person, one vote " standard under American jurisprudence for legislative redistricting, holding that each individual had to be weighted equally in legislative apportionment. This affected numerous state legislatures that had not redistricted congressional districts for decades, despite major population shifts. It also ultimately affected the composition of state legislative districts as well, which in Alabama and numerous other states had overrepresented rural districts and underrepresented urban districts with much greater populations.
What was the opinion of the Court in Colegrove v. Green?
Green, a plurality opinion of the Court in which Justice Felix Frankfurter declared that "Courts ought not to enter this political thicket.".
What was the case of Sanders v. Tennessee?
Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963)) The case arose from a lawsuit against the state of Tennessee, which had not conducted redistricting since 1901. The state of Tennessee argued that the composition of legislative districts constituted a nonjusticiable political question, as the U.S. Supreme Court had held in Colegrove v.
Which Supreme Court case required the United States House of Representatives and state legislatures to establish electoral districts of equal population?
In 1964, the Supreme Court would hand down two cases, Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims, which required the United States House of Representatives and state legislatures to establish electoral districts of equal population on the principle of one person, one vote .
What was the complaint of Baker?
Baker's complaint was that Tennessee had not redistricted since 1901, in response to the 1900 census . 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.
What was the Supreme Court case in Baker v. Carr?
Baker v. Carr was a Supreme Court case that determined apportionment to be a judicable issue. Shelby County, Tennessee failed to reapportion legislative district lines in agreement with federal census records. Residents were left feeling as though their votes were diluted. Plaintiff, and Shelby County resident, Charles Baker, alleged that he was denied equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, and sued Joe Carr, Tennessee’s Secretary of State. In a 6 – 2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Tennessee was in violation of Constitutional law. Subsequent to this case, states across the country were now required to reapportion their legislative districts in order to reflect their population.
Which amendment did Baker v. Carr challenge?
Baker v. Carr challenged the apportionment of legislatures through the guarantee of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
How long was the Baker v Carr case?
Carr and heard a total of three hours of oral arguments. The case was decided on by the Supreme Court on March 26, 1962.
What did the Supreme Court say about dilution of votes?
Justice Brennan wrote the majority opinion of the court, essentially stating that dilution of votes was, in fact, denying the residents of Tennessee equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Where did Baker v. Carr take place?
Baker v. Carr went to district court. The court held that Baker v. Carr lacked jurisdiction. The case started in the district court in a middle Tennessee court and was sent to Supreme Court but the supreme court reversed the decision and remanded the lower court’s decision.
Which Justices wrote a concurring opinion, stating that voters should have a full constitutional value of their vote
Justice Douglas wrote a concurring opinion, stating that voters should have a full constitutional value of their vote. Justices Harlan and Frankfurter dissented stating that it was not up to the court to interfere with the state’s legislative apportionment.
Who wrote the concurring opinion?
Concurring Opinion (Douglas) Justice William O. Douglas wrote a concurring opinion. Douglas stated that if a voter’s’ rights were in any way being restricted, in that he does not have the full constitutional value of his vote, then that voter must be able to bring this to the attention of the court.
Baker v. Carr: Issue
The question at the center of Baker v. Carr was: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? Apportionment is the mapping of legislative districts of equitable population and is done after a census.
Baker v. Carr: Arguments
Charles W. Baker, mayor of Millington, Tennessee, filed the case against Joe C. Carr, as the Secretary of the State of Tennessee. Baker claimed that the Tennessee General Assembly had ignored the 1901 law requiring district apportionment to be re-evaluated every ten years.
Baker v. Carr: Ruling
The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of Baker. In the majority opinion, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., explored political questions of malapportionment and (overturning the Court's 1946 ruling on Colegrove v. Green) held that, in matters of legislative apportionment, federal courts could intervene.
What was the decision in Baker v. Carr?
Carr: The Decision. The District Court initially agreed with Tennessee, arguing not that the state's failure to reapportion representatives was constitutional, but that it was the legislature's job to remedy. The United States Supreme Court, however, disagreed.
What did Charles Baker do to the state of Tennessee?
He claimed that the districts used to determine representation in the Tennessee state legislature were unfairly drawn. The Tennessee State Constitution stipulates that towns are obligated to take a census, or the statistical data of districts, towns, and cities' populations and demographics. They must do this every ten years, and the state is then required to use this information to redraw the jurisdictional boundaries in a fair manner. According to Mr. Baker, the legislature was failing in their duty.
Facts of The Case
Constitutional Questions
- Can the Supreme Court rule on a case regarding apportionment? The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause says that a state cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Did Tennessee deny Baker equal protection when it failed to update its apportionment plan?
Majority Opinion
- Justice William Brennan delivered the 6-2 decision. Justice Whittaker recused himself. Justice Brennan focused the decision on whether redistricting could be a "justiciable" question, meaning whether federal courts could hear a case regarding apportionment of state representatives. Justice Brennan wrote that the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction in relation to appo…
Dissenting Opinion
- Justice Felix Frankfurter dissented, joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan. The Court's decision represented a clear deviation from a long history of judicial restraint, he argued. The decision allowed the Supreme Court and other federal district courts to enter the political realm, violating the intent of separation of powers, Justice Frankfurter wrote. Justice Frankfurter added:
Impact
- Chief Justice Earl Warren called Baker v. Carr the most important case of his tenure on the Supreme Court. It opened the door to numerous historic cases in which the Supreme Court tackled questions of voting equality and representation in government. Within seven weeks of the decision, lawsuits had been filed in 22 states asking for relief in terms of unequal apportionmen…
Sources
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
- Atleson, James B. “The Aftermath of Baker v. Carr. An Adventure in Judicial Experimentation.” California Law Review, vol. 51, no. 3, 1963, p. 535., doi:10.2307/3478969.
- “Baker v. Carr (1962).” The Rose Institute of State and Local Government, http://roseinstitute.org/redistricting/baker/.
Overview
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the Fourteenth Amendment, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases. The court summarized its Baker holding in a later decision as follows: "Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of a State Legislature in designing the geographical …
Background
Plaintiff 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 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.
Decision
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 reargument because in conference no clear majority emerged for either side of the case. Associate Justice Charles Evans Whittaker was so torn over the case that he eventually had to recuse himself for health reasons. The arduous decisional process in Baker is often blamed for Whittaker's subsequent health problems, which forced him to retire from the Court in 1962.
Dissent by Justices Frankfurter and Harlan
Frankfurter, joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, 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. He wrote:
Appellants invoke the right to vote and to have their votes counted. But they are permitted to vote and their votes are counted. They go to the polls, they cast their ballots, they send their represen…
Aftermath
Having declared redistricting issues justiciable in Baker, the court laid out a new test for evaluating such claims. The Court formulated the famous "one person, one vote" standard under American jurisprudence for legislative redistricting, holding that each individual had to be weighted equally in legislative apportionment. This affected numerous state legislatures that had not redistricted congressional districts for decades, despite major population shifts. It also ultimately affected t…
See also
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 369
• Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 556 (1946): Disparities in Congressional districts are non-judiciable. "The remedy for unfairness in districting is to secure State legislatures that will apportion properly, or to invoke the ample powers of Congress." (Illinois).
Further reading
• Eisler, Kim Isaac (1993). A Justice for All: William J. Brennan, Jr., and the decisions that transformed America. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-76787-9.
• Gifford, Donald G. (2010). Suing the Tobacco and Lead Pigment Industries: Government Litigation as Public Health Prescription. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. p. 318. ISBN 978-0-472-11714-7.
External links
• Text of Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) is available from: Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
• Baker v. Carr Case Brief, Lawnix.com
• "Supreme Court Landmark Case Baker v. Carr" from C-SPAN's Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions