 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
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)) |
(Re-districting is a justiciable issue for SCOTUS.) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
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=This case originated in Tennessee. | ||
|holding=Re-districting is a justiciable issue for SCOTUS. | |||
|rule="One person, one vote" | |rule="One person, one vote" | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
Revision as of 18:55, June 26, 2022
| Baker v. Carr | |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 369 U.S. 186 (1962) |
| Date decided | March 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.
Holding
Re-districting is a justiciable issue for SCOTUS.
Rule
"One person, one vote"
Resources
- Case text at Khan Academy discussion with Theodore Olson & Guy-Uriel Charles
- Case text at 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.
Rules
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
Dissent
The present case involves all the elements which have made the Guarantee Clause cases non-justiciable.
