What is baker v carr. Baker v. Carr Definition & Meaning 2022-10-26
What is baker v carr Rating:
Baker v. Carr, also known as the "one man, one vote" case, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided in 1962. The case arose when Charles W. Baker, a Tennessee voter, filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Secretary of State, Joe Carr, alleging that the state's electoral districts were unconstitutional.
At the time, Tennessee's electoral districts were based on property ownership, which meant that some districts had significantly more voting power than others. Baker argued that this system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any person "equal protection of the laws."
The Supreme Court agreed with Baker, holding that the Tennessee electoral system violated the Equal Protection Clause because it gave disproportionate voting power to certain districts. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause requires states to draw their electoral districts in a way that ensures that each person's vote carries the same weight, regardless of where they live.
The decision in Baker v. Carr was a major victory for voting rights and democracy. It established the principle of "one man, one vote," which has been interpreted to mean that states must use population, rather than property ownership, as the basis for drawing electoral districts. This has helped to ensure that all citizens have an equal say in the political process, regardless of their economic status or the wealth of their district.
Baker v. Carr also had a significant impact on redistricting cases in the United States. Prior to the decision, redistricting cases were considered to be political questions that were not appropriate for judicial review. However, the Court's decision in Baker v. Carr established that redistricting cases are justiciable, meaning that they can be decided by the courts. This has allowed courts to play a crucial role in ensuring that states follow the principles of "one man, one vote" when drawing electoral districts.
Overall, Baker v. Carr is an important case that has had a lasting impact on voting rights and democracy in the United States. It has helped to ensure that all citizens have an equal say in the political process and has established the principle of "one man, one vote" as a fundamental principle of American democracy.
Baker v. Carr: Summary, Ruling & Significance
Dismissal of the complaint upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter would, therefore, be justified only if that claim were 'so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit,' Newburyport Water Co. Unquestionably the case lay at the vortex of most fiery political embroilment. Lightfoot, To find such a political conception legally enforceable in the broad and unspecific guarantee of equal protection is to rewrite the Constitution. The cases we have reviewed show the necessity for discriminating inquiry into the precise facts and posture of the particular case, and the impossibility of resolution by any semantic cataloguing. § 1343 3 or its predecessors to entertain suits to redress deprivations of rights secured against state infringement by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. I find none other than through the federal courts.
Baker v. Carr: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
The argument is that although the same or greater disparities of electoral strength may be suffered to exist immune from federal judicial review in States where they result from apportionment legislation consistent with state constitutions, the Tennessee Legislature may not abridge the rights which, on its face, its own constitution appears to give, without by that act denying equal protection of the laws. This Court dismissed the appeals in Cook v. White, 1 Brown's Cases in Parliament 62; 2 Ld. Page 308 cal struggles between the King or the royal governors and the colonial legislatures, Such inequalities survived the constitutional period. That was the result in Asbury Park Press v.
Unless one of these formulations is inextricable from the case at bar, there should be no dismissal for non-justiciability on the ground of a political question's presence. In this regard, the appellants have proposed a plan based on the rationale of statewide equal representation. Their complaint is simply that the representatives are not sufficiently numerous or powerful—in short, that Tennessee has adopted a basis of representation with which they are dissatisfied. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, McGowan v. It has refused to pass on a claim relying on the Guaranty Clause to establish that Congress lacked power to allow the States to employ the referendum in passing on legislation redistricting for congressional seats. The policy of the Constitution referred to by the dissenters, therefore, is of no relevance here. And this is the more so true because in every strand of this complicated, intricate web of values meet the contending forces of partisan politics.
We understand the District Court to have read the cited cases as compelling the conclusion that, since the appellants sought to have a legislative apportionment held unconstitutional, their suit presented a "political question," and was therefore nonjusticiable. In that case a corporation tax statute enacted by the initiative was attacked ostensibly on three grounds: 1 due process; 2 equal protection; and 3 the Guaranty Clause. Hansard 1839 , 9 A. What was the effect of the Wisconsin v Yoder Supreme Court case quizlet? They will not stand impotent before an obvious instance of a manifestly unauthorized exercise of power. However, our decisions in favor of justiciability even in light of those provisions plainly afford no support for the District Court's conclusion that the subject matter of this controversy presents a political question. The right asserted is within the reach of judicial protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
What was the impact of the Baker v Carr decision in the Supreme Court?
Nor does the Tennessee court's decision in that case bear upon this, for, just as in Smith v. In light of the District Court's treatment of the case, we hold today only a that the court possessed jurisdiction of the subject matter; b that a justiciable cause of Page 198 action is stated upon which appellants would be entitled to appropriate relief; and c because appellees raise the issue before this Court, that the appellants have standing to challenge the Tennessee apportionment statutes. There is no provision for popular initiative in Tennessee. Such provisions will almost inevitably produce numerical inequalities. Appellants appear as representatives of a class that is prejudiced as a class, in contradistinction to the polity in its entirety. The majority did not offer a resolution, however, and instead sent the case back down to the district court to decide the case on its merits.
This may be read to assert a claim that voters in counties allegedly over-represented in the General Assembly also have standing to complain. A citizen's right to a vote free of arbitrary impairment by state action has been judicially recognized as a right secured by the Constitution, when such impairment resulted from dilution by a false tally, cf. They were accepted precisely as they were, and it is, therefore, to be presumed that they were such as it was the duty of the States to provide. Dissenting Opinion Justice Felix Frankfurter dissented, joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan. Georgia Law Review 28 fall.
Legislative authority—Term of office. This reasoning does not bear analysis. The Court has said time and again that the Equal Protection Clause does not demand of state enactments either mathematical identity or rigid equality. The equal protection clause did not write an empty formalism into the Constitution. The argument that congressional redistricting problems presented a 'political question' the resolution of which was confided to Congress might have been rested upon Art.
The Tennessee Constitution provides in Art. Finally, we msut consider if there are any appropriate modes of effective judicial relief. One plan might be to start with the existing assembly districts, consolidate some of them, and award the seats thus released to those counties suffering the most egregious discrimination. Defendants moved to dismiss, inter alia, on the ground of failure to join indispensable parties, and they argue in this Court that only the County Election Commissioners of the ninety-five counties are the effective administrators of Tennessee's elections laws, and that none of the defendants have substantial duties in connection therewith. Maryland, Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Page 192 Between 1901 and 1961, Tennessee has experienced substantial growth and redistribution of her population.