Editing Baker v. Carr

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Supreme Court of the United States
|citation=369 U.S. 186 (1962)
|date=March 26, 1962
|subject=Constitutional Law
|other_subjects=Voting
|overturned=Colegrove v. Green
|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 1962, the less-populous rural America was over-represented in state legislatures all over the country.

In ''Colegrove v. Green'', (1946), SCOTUS claimed that redistributing is a political question. SCOTUS won't decide on re-districting.
|procedural_history=Baker was a voter in Tennessee. He sued Joe Carr, the Secretary of State for Tennessee ''ex officio''.

Baker claimed that he as an urban voter wasn't equally represented in the state legislature; Baker claimed a violation of the equal protection clause under the [[14th Amendment]].

The [https://www.tnmd.uscourts.gov/ district court] dismissed the case as a political question.
|issues=Whether an equal protection challenge to mal-apportionment of state legislatures is a non-justiciable political question.
|holding=Re-districting is a justiciable issue for SCOTUS.

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.
|rule="One person, one vote"

Issues involving political questions
*a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
*a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it
*the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly nonjudicial discretion
*the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government
*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
|comments='''Dissent''':

The present case involves all the elements which have made the [[Guarantee Clause]] cases non-justiciable.
|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
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/10/Baker-v.-Carr
|case_text_source=C-SPAN video discussion
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/baker-v-carr
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}
}}
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 |rule="One person, one vote"
-Issues involving political questions:
+Issues involving political questions
 *a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
 *a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 }}
 }}
-==References==
-{{reflist}}