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
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.
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.
Baker v. Carr
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.
