Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
(Voting / Equal Protection)
Introduction
The plaintiffs in Baker v. Carr brought suit alleging that the voting districts for their state
legislature violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. They alleged that the district
lines had been arbitrarily drawn without regard to population distribution and that no redistricting
had occurred since the system's 1901 enactment. This, they argued, had the effect of making
votes cast in less populous districts count for more than votes cast in other districts. The
defendants, relying on Colegrove v. Green,1 argued that voting apportionment was not the type of
dispute a court could or should resolve (not a "justiciable" controversy). The U.S. District Court
dismissed the case on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction and the case was not justiciable.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the federal judiciary did have jurisdiction and that the case was
justiciable. The court explained that Colegrove v. Green did not apply where the plaintiffs could
demonstrate a violation of a constitutional right other than the "republican form of government"
clause [Art IV. sect 4] – a right such as equal protection.
Significance
This case is significant in bringing courts into voting rights disputes that can be framed in equal
protection terms and for its formulation of the equal protection standard in this area. The court
explained the latter as follows:
The injury which appellants assert is that this classification disfavors the voters in the counties in
which they reside, placing them in a position of constitutionally unjustifiable inequality vis-a-vis
voters in irrationally favored counties. 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. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299; or
by a refusal to count votes from arbitrarily selected precincts, cf. United States v. Mosley, 238
U.S. 383, or by a stuffing of the ballot box, cf. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371; United States v.
Saylor, 322 U.S. 385.
Baker v. Carr has broader significance in its approach to distinguishing between justiciable and
non-justiciable issues. The opinion describes the case by case analysis required to make the
determination and discusses the relevant case law in specific areas where justiciability is an issue
– foreign relations, dates of duration of hostilities, validity of legislative enactments, status of
Indian tribes, and republican form of government. The Court explained that political questions
arise when the judiciary is asked to a determination on matters over which a coordinate federal
branch has authority. The federal judiciary's relationship with state governments is, the Court
explained, less problematic, having fewer areas of possible non-justiciability. Baker's approach
to the issue of justiciability is still followed.
Baker only established that voting right claims are "within the reach of judicial protection under
the Fourteenth Amendment." The application of the Baker v. Carr to equal protection claims was
explored in greater detail in Reynolds v. Simms where the one person one vote principle was
articulated.