Baker v. Carr: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Re-districting is a justiciable issue for SCOTUS.) |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=March 1962 | |date=March 1962 | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|other_subjects=Voting | |other_subjects=Voting*state legislatures | ||
|case_treatment=No | |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> | ||
| 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. | ||
|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. | |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 | Issues involving political questions | ||
| Line 39: | Line 23: | ||
*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 | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
Revision as of 03:12, June 27, 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.
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
