26 Baker v. Carr (1962)
Chief Justice Earl Warren (1943-1953)
Issue/Topic
Judicial review,Political Question Doctrine, Reapportionment
II. Background and Facts of the Case
"Charles Baker (P) was a resident of Shelby County, Tennessee. Baker filed suit against Joe
Carr, the Secretary of State of Tennessee. Baker’s complaint alleged that the Tennessee
legislature had not redrawn its legislative districts since 1901, in violation of the Tennessee State
Constitution which required redistricting according to the federal census every 10 years. Baker,
who lived in an urban part of the state, asserted that the demographics of the state had changed
shifting a greater proportion of the population to the cities, thereby diluting his vote in violation
of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Baker sought an injunction
prohibiting further elections, and sought the remedy of reapportionment or at-large elections. The
district court denied relief on the grounds that the issue of redistricting posed a political question
and would therefore not be heard by the court."
III. The Issue for the Court
Does the Supreme court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?
IV. Arguments
Plaintiff (Baker): Tennessee’s legislature had not redrawn it’s districts since 1901 which violated
the federal census. He felt that his district did not have the proportional amount of people in it
and therefore affected his vote (violating the Equal Protection Clause)
Defense (Carr) : Carr stated he was not responsible for the malapportionment because he was
“not the person who set the district lines.” The state of Tennessee also argued that the item of
reapportionment was a political question, not a judicial.
Opinion: Disregarding the federal government’s laws is unconstitutional, therefore the state of
Tennessee is out of line.
V. Decision
The court ruled in favor of Baker 6-2
VI. Reasoning
"Yes (to the question in IV), in an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and
the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to
be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. In his opinion,
Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct
constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through
whom state affairs are conducted. Brennan concluded that theFourteenth Amendment equal
protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation."
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Frankfurter “This case has all the elements of the case in
Colegrove and it is brought in just under a different title. The issues that this case raises are
political in nature and require the type of training that the judges cannot be expected to have.
Therefore, this case should have been nonjusticiable.”
VII. Personal Opinion
Baker v. Carr holds tremendous significance due to the provisions for reapportionment. This case
has forced state legislatures to reapportion districts every census. Because legislatures are
reapportioning these districts frequently, the people’s vote can be more proportional; however,
that assumption requires the absence of Gerrymandering. The court made the correct decision
because if the state legislature did as they pleased, the federal census would be unnecessary.
26 Baker v. Carr (1962)
Chief Justice Earl Warren (1943-1953)
VIII. Historical Significance of the Case
Case decided whether federal courts had the jurisdiction to rule on legislative reapportionment
plans and according to Ajlambert “Baker v. Carr and subsequent cases fundamentally altered the
nature of political representation in America, requiring not just Tennessee but nearly every state
to redistrict during the 1960s, often several times.”
Related cases
Colegrove v. Green
Reynolds v. Sims
Wesberry v. Sanders
IX. Citations
"Baker v. Carr – Case Brief Summary." Lawnix - Law Resources and Legal Information. Web. 29 Apr.
2011. <http://www.lawnix.com/cases/baker-carr.html>.
"Baker v. Carr | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law." The Oyez Project at IIT
Chicago-Kent College of Law | U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument Recordings, Case Abstracts
and More. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_6>.
"Baker v. Carr." 4LawSchool.com: For Law, Pre-law Students and Legal Professionals. Web. 29 Apr.
2011. <http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/baker.shtml>.