Previous 22 / 164 Next

BAKER v. CARR. 186 Opinion of the Court. ber of cases decided after Colegrove recognized the standing of the voters there involved to bring those actions.2 8 These appellants seek relief in order to protect or vindicate an interest of their own, and of those similarly situated. Their constitutional claim is, in substance, that the 1901 statute constitutes arbitrary and capricious state action, offensive to the Fouiteenth Amendment in its irrational disregard of the standard of apportionment prescribed by the State's Constitution or of any standard, effecting a gross disproportion of representation to voting population. The injury which appellants assert is that this classification disfavors the voters in the counties in which they reside, placing them in a position. of constitutionally unjustifiable inequality vis-a-vis voters they have been injured as individuals." He relied on Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 438, 467. See 328 U. S. 564, 568. " Commentators have suggested that the following statement in MR. JusTicE FRANKFURTER'S opinion might imply a view that appellants there had no standing: "This is not an action to recover for damage because of the discriminatory exclusion of a plaintiff from rights dnjoyed by other citizens. The basis for the suit is not a private wrong, but a wrong suffered by Illinois as a polity." 328 U. S., at 552. See Jaffe, Standing to Secure Judicial Review: Public Actions, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 1265, 1298 (1961); Lewis, Legislative Apportionment and the Federal Courts, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 1057, 10811083 (1958). But since the opinion goes on to consider the merits, it seems that this statement was not intended to intimate any view that the plaintiffs in that action lacked standing. Nor do the cases cited immediately after the above quotation deal with standing. See especially Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268, 272-.273. 28 MacDougall v. Green, supra, at 282 ("the 'Progressive Party,' its nominees for United States Senator, Presidential Electors, and'State offices, and several Illinois voters"); South v. Peters, supra, at 277 ("residents of the most populous county in the State"); Radford v. Gary, 145 F. Supp. 541, 542 ("citizen of Oklahoma and resident and voter in the most populous county"); Matthews v. Handley, supra ("citizen of the State") ; see also Hawke v. Smith (No. 1), 253 U. S. 221; Leser v. Garnett, 258 U. S. 130; Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 437-446.

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