 | This article'stone or style may not reflect theencyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia'sguide to writing better articles for suggestions.(September 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Baker v. Carr | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 19–20, 1961 Reargued October 9, 1961 Decided March 26, 1962 | |
| Full case name | Charles W. Baker et al. v. Joe. C. Carr et al. |
| Citations | 369U.S.186 (more) 82 S. Ct. 691; 7L. Ed. 2d 663; 1962U.S. LEXIS 1567 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 179F. Supp.824 (M.D. Tenn. 1959),probable jurisdiction noted,364 U.S. 898 (1960). Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Subsequent | On remand, 206F. Supp.341 (M.D. Tenn. 1962) |
| Holding | |
| The redistricting of state legislative districts is not apolitical question. Therefore, cases related to the aforementioned arejusticiable by the federal courts. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark, Stewart |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Concurrence | Clark |
| Concurrence | Stewart |
| Dissent | Frankfurter, joined by Harlan |
| Dissent | Harlan, joined by Frankfurter |
| Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV; U.S. Const. art. III;42 U.S.C. § 1983; Tenn. Const. art. II | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946)(in part) | |
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was alandmarkUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court held thatredistricting qualifies as ajusticiable question under theFourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases. The court summarized itsBaker holding in a later decision as follows: "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of a State Legislature in designing the geographical districts from which representatives are chosen either for the State Legislature or for the Federal House of Representatives." (Gray v. Sanders,372 U.S.368 (1963)). The court had previously held inGomillion v. Lightfoot that districting claims over racial discrimination could be brought under the Fifteenth Amendment.
The case arose from a lawsuit against the state of Tennessee, which had not conducted redistricting since 1901. Tennessee argued that the composition of legislative districts constituted a nonjusticiablepolitical question, as the U.S. Supreme Court had held inColegrove v. Green (1946). In a majority opinion joined by five other justices, JusticeWilliam J. Brennan Jr. held that redistricting did not qualify as a political question, though he remanded the case to the federal district court for further proceedings. JusticeFelix Frankfurter strongly dissented, arguing that the Court's decision cast aside history and judicial restraint and violated the separation of powers between legislatures and courts.
The case did not have any immediate effect on electoral districts, but it set an important precedent regarding the power of federal courts to address redistricting. In 1964, the Supreme Court handed down two cases,Wesberry v. Sanders andReynolds v. Sims, that required theUnited States House of Representatives and state legislatures to establish electoral districts of equal population on the principle ofone person, one vote.
Plaintiff Charles Baker was aRepublican who lived inShelby County, Tennessee, and had served as the mayor ofMillington, nearMemphis.[1] TheTennessee State Constitution required that theTennessee General Assembly's legislative districts 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 the1900 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 therural districts. Rural citizens' votes were thus 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" the Fourteenth Amendment requires. DefendantJoe Carr was sued in his position asTennessee Secretary of State. Carr was not the person who set the district lines – the state legislature had done that – but was suedex officio as the person ultimately responsible for the conduct of elections in the state and the publication of district maps.
Tennessee argued that the composition of legislative districts was essentially a political question, not a judicial one, as had been held byColegrove v. Green,[2] a plurality opinion of the Court in which JusticeFelix Frankfurter declared that "Courts ought not to enter this political thicket." Frankfurter believed that relief for legislativemalapportionment had to be won through the political process.[3]
The case had to be put over for reargument because in conference no clear majority emerged for either side of the case. During the case, JusticeCharles Evans Whittakerrecused himself for health reasons, ultimately retiring from the Court in 1962.[4]
The opinion was finally handed down in March 1962, nearly a year after it was initially argued. The Court split 6 to 2 in ruling that Baker's case was justiciable, producing, in addition to the opinion of the Court by JusticeWilliam J. Brennan, three concurring opinions and two dissenting opinions. Brennan reformulated the political question doctrine, identifying six factors to help in determining which questions are "political" in nature. Cases that are political in nature are marked by:
JusticeTom C. Clark switched his vote at the last minute to a concurrence on the substance of Baker's claims, which would have enabled a majority that could have granted relief for Baker. Instead, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Court.
The large majority in this case can in many ways be attributed to Brennan, who convinced JusticePotter Stewart that the case was a narrow ruling dealing only with the right to challenge the statute. Brennan also talked down JusticesHugo Black andWilliam O. Douglas from their usual absolutist positions to achieve a compromise.[5]
Frankfurter, joined by JusticeJohn 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.[6] 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 representatives to the state councils. Their complaint is simply that the representatives are not sufficiently numerous or powerful.
 | ||||
| United States federal civil procedure doctrines | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justiciability | ||||
| Jurisdiction | ||||
| ||||
| Federalism | ||||
Having declared redistricting issues justiciable inBaker, the court laid out a new test for evaluating such claims. The Court formulated the famous "one person, one vote" standard underAmerican jurisprudence for legislative redistricting, holding that every person 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, which in Alabama and many other states had overrepresented rural districts and underrepresented urban districts with much greater populations.
This principle was formally enunciated inReynolds v. Sims (1964). The Court decided that in states withbicameral legislatures, like Alabama, the state in this case, both houses had to be apportioned on this standard. This voided theAlabama Constitution's provision for two state senators from each county and similar provisions elsewhere. Similarly, the Tennessee Constitution prevented counties from being split and portions of a county from being attached to other counties or parts of counties in creating a legislative district. This was overridden on the principle of basing districts on population. Today counties are frequently split among districts in formingTennessee State Senate districts. "One person, one vote" was first applied as a standard forCongressional districts inWesberry v. Sanders. State legislatures were supposed to redistrict according to population changes, but many had not for decades.
Baker v. Carr and subsequent cases fundamentally changed the nature of political representation in the United States, requiring not just Tennessee but nearly every state to redistrict during the 1960s, often several times. This reapportionment increased urban areas' political power and reduced that of more rural areas.[7] After he left the Court,Chief JusticeEarl Warren called theBaker v. Carr line of cases the most important in his tenure as Chief.[8]