Previous 15 / 164 Next

OCTOBER TERM, 1961. Opinion of the Court. 369 U. S. jurisdiction existed, whilst the opinion of the court as to the want of merit in the cause of action might have furnished ground for dismissing for that reason, it afforded no sufficient ground for deciding that the action was not one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States." Swafiord v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487, 493. "For it is well settled that the failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction." Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 682. See also Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, 263 U. S. 291, 305-308. Since the complaint plainly sets forth a case arising under the Constitution, the subject matter is within the .federal judicial power defined in Art. III, § 2, and so within the power of Congress to assign to the jurisdiction of the District Courts. Congress has exercised that power in 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3): "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law 18 to be commenced by any person . . . [t]o redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States .... ." 19 18 42 U. S. C. § 1983 provides: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the paTty injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." ' 19 This Court has frequently sustained Distrit Court jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3) or its predecessors to entertain suits to redress deprivations of rights secured against state infringement by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Baker v. Carr

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether a claim alleging that a state's legislative apportionment scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — by diluting the voting power of citizens in overpopulated districts — presents a justiciable controversy or is a non-justiciable "political question" that federal courts lack authority to adjudicate. This issue required the Court to revisit and overturn the precedent of Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946), which had held that federal courts should not intervene in reapportionment disputes.

Alleged Acts: Tennessee had not reapportioned its state legislative districts since 1901, despite a constitutional requirement to do so every ten years and despite dramatic population shifts over the intervening decades. By the 1960s, the state's legislative districts were severely malapportioned: some districts had populations over ten times larger than others, meaning rural voters were vastly overrepresented while urban voters were underrepresented. For example, a voter in a rural district had roughly ten times the voting power of a voter in an urban district like Memphis or Nashville. A group of Tennessee voters, led by Charles Baker (a Republican voter from Shelby County), sued Joe Carr, the Tennessee Secretary of State, in federal court. Baker alleged that the failure to reapportion violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by diluting the votes of urban residents. The suit sought to have the apportionment declared unconstitutional and to compel the state to reapportion.

Procedural history: The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that reapportionment was a non-justiciable political question beyond the authority of federal courts.

Summary: Baker v. Carr is one of the most consequential constitutional law decisions of the twentieth century. The Supreme Court held for the first time that challenges to state legislative apportionment under the Equal Protection Clause are justiciable — they do not present non-justiciable political questions. By ruling that federal courts have the authority to review and remedy malapportionment, the Court overturned the prior precedent of Colegrove v. Green (1946) and opened the door to the "reapportionment revolution" of the 1960s. The decision established that the Equal Protection Clause provides judicially manageable standards for evaluating vote dilution claims, and that voters whose votes are diluted by malapportioned districts have standing to sue. The case laid the constitutional foundation for the "one person, one vote" doctrine, which was formally articulated two years later in Reynolds v. Sims (1964). Together, Baker and Reynolds transformed American democracy by requiring legislative districts to be drawn based on substantially equal population, ending the rural-dominated legislatures that had persisted for decades despite massive urban population growth.

Conclusion: In a 6–2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's dismissal and held that legislative apportionment challenges under the Equal Protection Clause are justiciable — they do not present non-justiciable political questions. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause provides a judicially manageable standard for evaluating apportionment claims, distinguishing them from cases involving the Guaranty Clause (Article IV, § 4), which had been held non-justiciable in Luther v. Borden. The Court explained that unlike the Guaranty Clause — which involves questions of republican government that lack judicially manageable standards — Equal Protection claims are governed by familiar and well-developed legal standards. The Court identified six characteristics of political questions (textual commitment to another branch, lack of judicially manageable standards, inability to decide without a policy determination, etc.) and concluded that none applied to Equal Protection apportionment claims. The Court emphasized that the claim was not based on the Guaranty Clause but on the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides an independent constitutional basis for judicial review.

Legal Issue(s)

Electoral Maps and Districting
Voters' Rights

Applicable Law(s): Fourteenth Amendment and Article III of the United States Constitution

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Mar 26, 1962

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.890591

Longitude: -77.004745

: Geolocation

Link: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep369/usrep369186/usrep369186.pdf

Primary Documents

Baker v. Carr.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Baker v. Carr

Primary Documents

Notifications