Editing Baker v. Carr

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

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 4: Line 4:
|date=March 26, 1962
|date=March 26, 1962
|subject=Constitutional Law
|subject=Constitutional Law
|other_subjects=Voting
|other_subjects=Voting*state legislatures
|overturned=Colegrove v. Green
|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 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.
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''.
|procedural_history=This case originated in Tennessee.
 
|issues=Whether an equal protection challenge to malapportionment of state legislatures is a non-justiciable political question.
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.
|holding=Re-districting is a justiciable issue for SCOTUS.


Line 43: Line 37:
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/baker-v-carr
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/baker-v-carr
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}
}}
}}
}}
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
Please note that all contributions to Wiki Law School are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (see Wiki Law School:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)