Baker v. Carr: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Colegrove v. Green'', (1946))
m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=Yes " to "")
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Case Brief
{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=U.S. Supreme 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
|case_treatment=No
|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>
|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=This case originated in Tennessee.
|procedural_history=Baker was a voter in Tennessee. He sued Joe Carr, the Secretary of State for Tennessee ''ex officio''.
|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.


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]].


'''Holding/Decision'''
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.
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:
'''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 38: Line 29:
*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
 
|comments='''Dissent''':
'''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.
|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
}}
}}
==References==
{{reflist}}

Latest revision as of 03:32, July 14, 2023

Baker v. Carr
Court Supreme Court of the United States
Citation 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
Date decided March 26, 1962
Overturned Colegrove v. Green

Facts

Prior to this case, state legislatures weren't organized by populations.[1]

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 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.

Resources

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ 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
Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/w/index.php?title=Baker_v._Carr&oldid=45863"