Baker v. Carr
|Baker v. Carr|
|Court||U.S. Supreme Court|
|Citation||369 U.S. 186 (1962)|
Whether an equal protection challenge to malapportionment of state legislatures is a non-justiciable political question.
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.
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
The present case involves all the elements which have made the Guarantee Clause cases non-justiciable.