Baker v. Carr (1962)Case Summary Show Charles Baker, a resident of an urban neighborhood in Tennessee, filed suit in federal court against Joe Carr, then Secretary of State of Tennessee. Baker sought a court injunction to postpone elections until the State had fulfilled its duty to reapportion its legislative districts, which it had not done since 1901 (over 60 years). Though the Tennessee Constitution required that reapportionment be carried out every ten years, Baker’s claim was based on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Baker argued that because of population changes in the state, specifically migration to cities, his vote in an urban area had much less weight than that of a voter in a rural district, thus constituting a “debasement of [his] votes.” Ruling After being dismissed at the district court level, the case was taken on appeal by the Supreme Court, which reversed the ruling, deemed the issue justiciable, and remanded. The Court found that plaintiffs had standing to sue, referencing Colegrove v. Green as precedent for granting “voters who allege facts showing disadvantage to themselves as individuals… standing to sue.” Reversing Colegrove, however, the Court went on to find that the courts were an appropriate source of relief for cases involving malapportionment. A major question before the Court was the issue of the political question doctrine, by which the district court and the Colegrove court had ruled issues involving reapportionment as nonjusticiable. The Supreme Court reversed, determining that because the claims were not derivative of the Guaranty Clause of Article IV, but rather the 14th Amendment, that simply the implication of political rights did not render an issue inappropriate for judicial review. While the Court created a six-part test to determine if a case presented a political question, the most important fact for redistricting purposes was the determination that the voting inequities presented satisfied these requirements, including the judgment that courts can provide “discoverable and manageable standards” for granting relief. Impact on Redistricting Baker v. Carr opened the door to judicial review of the redistricting process, prompted a cascade of subsequent lawsuits, and sent shockwaves through the redistricting community. Though the opinion stopped short of addressing the shape relief should take in malapportionment cases, by recognizing unequal districts as creating real and justiciable injuries, it laid the groundwork for the rapid development of the “one-person one-vote” principle. It is no coincidence that by 1964, only two years later, 26 States had reapportioned their legislative districts, three under court-drawn plans, many more under judicial pressure. By 1966 that number rose to 46 states. journal article On Charting a Course through the Mathematical Quagmire: The Future of Baker v. CarrMichigan Law Review Vol. 61, No. 1 (Nov., 1962) , pp. 107-146 (40 pages) Published By: The Michigan Law Review Association https://doi.org/10.2307/1286551 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1286551 Read and download Log in through your school or library Subscribe to JPASS Unlimited reading + 10 downloads Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan
Journal Information The Michigan Law Review began publication in 1902 and is the sixth oldest legal journal in the country. The Review originally was intended as a forum for the faculty of the Law Department to publish their legal scholarship. From its inception until 1940, the Review's student members worked under the direction of faculty members who served as Editor-in-Chief. In 1940, the first student Editor-in-Chief was selected. During the years that followed, student editors were given increasing responsibility and autonomy; today, the Review is run with no faculty supervision. Seven of each volume's eight issues ordinarily are composed of articles by legal scholars and practitioners, and notes written by the student editors. One issue in each volume is devoted to book reviews. Occasionally special issues are devoted to symposia or colloquia. Publisher Information The Michigan Law Review publishes eight issues annually. Seven of each volume’s eight issues are composed of two major parts: Articles by legal scholars and practitioners, and Notes by law students. One issue in each volume is devoted to book reviews. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR
Collection. What was the impact of Baker v Carr?Baker v. Carr opened the door to judicial review of the redistricting process, prompted a cascade of subsequent lawsuits, and sent shockwaves through the redistricting community.
What was the outcome of Baker v Carr 1962 quizlet?Decision: The Warren Court reached a 6-2 verdict in favor of Baker. A lack of political question, previous court intervention in apportionment affairs and equal protection under the 14th amendment gave the court enough reason to rule on legislative apportionment. Court gained power to rule on apportionment laws.
What was the outcome of the Baker v Carr decision?The outcome: The court ruled 6-2 in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that apportionment cases are justiciable (i.e., that federal courts have the right to intervene in such cases).
What was the most significant consequence of the ruling in Baker v Carr?The 6-2 decision in favor of Baker, written by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., was significant because it established legislative apportionment as justiciable (meaning a federal court could intervene) under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
|
Baker v. carr (1962) impacted the nature of political representation in which of the following ways?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 IlerngutCOM Inc.
