 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Editing Baker v. Carr
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court=Supreme Court | |court=U.S. Supreme Court | ||
|citation=369 U.S. 186 (1962) | |citation=369 U.S. 186 (1962) | ||
|date=March | |date=March 1962 | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|other_subjects=Voting | |other_subjects=Voting; state legislatures | ||
| | |case_treatment=No | ||
|facts=Prior to this case, '''state legislatures''' weren't organized by populations.<ref>https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-the-national-constitution-center/us-gov-landmark-supreme-court-cases/v/baker-v-carr?modal=1</ref> | |facts=Prior to this case, '''state legislatures''' weren't organized by populations.<ref>https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-the-national-constitution-center/us-gov-landmark-supreme-court-cases/v/baker-v-carr?modal=1</ref> | ||
In | In ''Colegrove v. Green'', (1946), SCOTUS claimed that redistributing is a political question. SCOTUS won't decide on re-districting. | ||
|procedural_history=This case originated in Tennessee. | |||
|rule="One person, one vote" | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-the-national-constitution-center/us-gov-landmark-supreme-court-cases/v/baker-v-carr?modal=1 | |||
|case_text_source=Khan Academy discussion with Theodore Olson & Guy-Uriel Charles | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule | |||
|case_text_source=Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
'''Issues''' | |||
Whether an equal protection challenge to malapportionment of state legislatures is a non-justiciable political question. | |||
'''Holding/Decision''' | |||
Apportionment cases can involve no federal constitutional right except one resting on the guaranty of a republican form of government, and complaints based on that clause have been held to present political questions which are non-justiciable. | Apportionment cases can involve no federal constitutional right except one resting on the guaranty of a republican form of government, and complaints based on that clause have been held to present political questions which are non-justiciable. | ||
Issues involving political questions | |||
'''Rules''' | |||
Issues involving political questions | |||
*a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department | *a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department | ||
*a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it | *a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it | ||
| Line 29: | Line 38: | ||
*an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made | *an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made | ||
*the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question | *the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question | ||
'''Dissent''' | |||
The present case involves all the elements which have made the [[Guarantee Clause]] cases non-justiciable. | The present case involves all the elements which have made the [[Guarantee Clause]] cases non-justiciable. | ||
