Baker v. Carr: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court= | |court=Supreme Court of the United States | ||
|citation=369 U.S. 186 (1962) | |citation=369 U.S. 186 (1962) | ||
|date=March 1962 | |date=March 26, 1962 | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|other_subjects=Voting*state legislatures | |other_subjects=Voting*state legislatures | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
|link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule | |link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule | ||
|case_text_source=Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School | |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 | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 11:35, May 29, 2023
| Baker v. Carr | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | 369 U.S. 186 (1962) |
| Date decided | March 26, 1962 |
Facts
Prior to this case, state legislatures weren't organized by populations.[1]
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.
Issues
Whether an equal protection challenge to malapportionment 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.Resources
- Case text at Khan Academy discussion with Theodore Olson & Guy-Uriel Charles
- Case text at Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School
- Case text at C-SPAN video discussion
