Redistricting & the 14th Amendment
Name ___________________
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Case Summary
Charles Baker, a resident of an urban neighborhood in Tennessee, filed suit in federal
court against Joe Carr, then Secretary of State of Tennessee. Baker sought a court
injunction to postpone elections until the State had fulfilled its duty to reapportion its
legislative districts, which it had not done since 1901 (over 60 years). Though the
Tennessee Constitution required that reapportionment be carried out every ten years,
Baker’s claim was based on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Baker
argued that because of population changes in the state, specifically migration to cities,
his vote in an urban area had much less weight than that of a voter in a rural district,
thus constituting a “debasement of [his] votes.”
Ruling
After being dismissed at the district court level, the case was taken on appeal by the
Supreme Court, which reversed the ruling, deemed the issue justiciable, and remanded.
The Court found that plaintiffs had standing to sue, saying that “voters who allege facts
showing disadvantage to themselves as individuals have standing to sue.” A major
question before the Court was the issue of the political question doctrine, by which the
district court and the Colegrove court had ruled issues involving reapportionment as
nonjusticiable. The Supreme Court reversed, determining that the implication of
political rights did not render an issue inappropriate for judicial review.
Impact on Redistricting
Baker v. Carr opened the door to judicial review of the redistricting process, prompted a
cascade of subsequent lawsuits, and sent shockwaves through the redistricting
community. Though the opinion stopped short of addressing the shape relief should
take in malapportionment cases, by recognizing unequal districts as creating real and
justiciable injuries, it laid the groundwork for the rapid development of the “one-person
one-vote” principle. It is no coincidence that by 1964, only two years later, 26 States had
reapportioned their legislative districts, three under court-drawn plans, many more
under judicial pressure. By 1966 that number rose to 46 states.
Redistricting & the 14th Amendment
Name ___________________
Gray v. Sanders (1963)
Case Summary
In this case the Supreme Court struck down Georgia’s “county-unit” system
for electing statewide officers.Under the unit system, out of a total of 410
County unit votes, the eight most populous counties had six unit votes
each, thirty counties had four votes each, and 121 counties had two votes
each. This gave the smallest counties a majority with 242 votes, though
they only made up one third of the State’s population.
Ruling
The Court held that the system violated the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Douglas, writing for an 8-1 majority, asserted that,
“The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence,
to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and
Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing – one person, one vote.”
Impact on Redistricting
Though it was unclear at the time how exacting the principle would be
enforced, Gary v. Sanders set down the “one person, one vote” standard
that still guides the redistricting process today. It also set the stage
for Reynolds v. Simms and the Reapportionment Cases.
Redistricting & the 14th Amendment
Name ___________________
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
Case Summary
North Carolina’s first redistricting plan following the 1990 Census was rejected because
it had created only one minority-majority district, while in the judgment of the US
Attorney General, there could have been two. This led to a new redistricting plan that
involved a heavily gerrymandered district that used interstate highways to connect high
density minority areas. The plan was challenged by white voters who claimed that the
plan was racially discriminatory, its only purpose being to elect a black representative.
The case reached the Supreme Court after being rejected by the district court, which
ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to state a constitutional basis for their complaint.
Ruling
The Court ruled that North Carolina’s plan, though facially race neutral, was of such an
unnatural shape that it went beyond what was reasonable in order to avoid racial
imbalance. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs did present a valid equal protection
challenge that must be examined under strict scrutiny. As such, efforts to satisfy §5 or
§2 of the Voting Rights Act must be narrowly tailored to those purposes, and does not
give the government free reign to gerrymander districts based solely on race. The case
was remanded to determine if there was a demonstratable, compelling government
interest that justified the plan under strict review.
Impact on Redistricting
This case established, at least in legal principle, the idea that creating minority-majority
districts did not override all other considerations, such as compactness, when drawing
districts. Shaw required future line-drawers to justify their plans in terms of a compelling
government interest, and show that theirs was the most reasonable plan possible that
satisfied that interest. It should be noted, however, that racial consideration still often
play a powerful, sometimes dominant role in redistricting efforts. Even in the case of the
North Carolina district in question, the District Court on remand found the plan did
satisfy the strict scrutiny standard, leading to a subsequent case, Shaw v. Hunt, in
which the Supreme Court reversed again.
Redistricting & the 14th Amendment
Name ___________________
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part
of Voting Rights Act
By ADAM LIPTAK JUNE 25, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South,
to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different
lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting
out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial
minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.
“While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the
legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly
after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into
effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal
approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law,
including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to afterthe-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by
critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply
disappointed” by the ruling.
Redistricting & the 14th Amendment
Name ___________________
Redistricting & the 14th Amendment
Name ___________________
Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
Case Summary
Voters from Jefferson County, Alabama challenged the apportionment structure of their
State House and Senate, which required each county to have at least one
representative, regardless of size. This system failed to take population size into
account, leading to huge discrepancies between district populations, in some cases on
the order of 41 to 1. Senators were also apportioned under a system that incorporated
geography into its formula, leading again to the under-representation of those in urban
counties and over-representation of those in small and rural counties. Under this system
Jefferson County, with a population of over 600,000, received only 1 senator and 7
representatives, while other counties with populations as low as 15,417 also received
one senator, along with one Representative. In light of these discrepancies, the District
Court found that there was an equal protection violation.
Ruling
The Court struck down Alabama’s apportionment system as unrepresentative,
reaffirming its ruling in Baker and Gray that the debasement or dilution of one’s vote in
State elections constitutes a justiciable violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The
majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Warren, went further than these cases by
expounding what the Court meant by “discoverable and manageable standards for use
by lower courts [when] determining the constitutionality of a state legislative
apportionment scheme.” The Court declared that “The Equal Protection Clause
demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all
citizens,” which it had determined in Gray v. Sanders should aim to achieve the ideal
of “one person, one vote. In explaining the Court’s position, Chief Justice Warren
included the famous line, “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres.” The Court
also dismissed the claim that states’ apportionment systems could mirror that of the
Federal Senate, claiming that the unique political needs that required that system of
apportionment were not applicable on the state level.
Impact on Redistricting
Reynolds would have huge repercussions for State governments, a fact immediately
recognized around the country. The reaction to this decision was so powerful that a
constitutional amendment was unsuccessfully proposed to allow States to have unequal
districts. To many, the idea that the Federal government could have a geographically
based apportionment system but that states could not seemed illogical. Regardless, the
decision stood, and State governments around the country would be forced to change
their apportionment systems to approximate the one-person one-vote principle. The
case also set an important precedent for allowing Courts to step in and enforce their
own redistricting plans when they found the legislature’s plans to be objectionable.