Baker v. Carr


Also found in: Legal, Wikipedia.

Baker v. Carr,

case decided in 1962 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Tennessee had failed to reapportion the state legislature for 60 years despite population growth and redistribution. Charles Baker, a voter, brought suit against the state (Joe Carr was a state official in charge of elections) in federal district court, claiming that the dilution of his vote as a result of the state's failure to reapportion violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it could not decide a political question. Baker appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that a case raising a political issue would be heard. This landmark decision opened the way for numerous suits on legislative apportionmentlegislative apportionment,
subdivision of a political body (e.g., a state or province) for the purpose of electing legislative representatives. In the United States, the Constitution requires that Congressional representatives be elected on the basis of population.
..... Click the link for more information.
.
References in periodicals archive ?
First, Baker v. Carr (1) and its early one person, one vote progeny were wrongly decided.
Justice Frankfurter's impassioned dissent in Baker v. Carr, like Justice Breyer's in Bush v.
When we look back at Baker v. Carr, there is a natural temptation to focus on Justice Brennan's famous six-factor restatement of the political question doctrine, and on the role of this case in fulfilling the visionary dicta of Carolene Products' footnote 4.
But if we take a closer look at Baker v. Carr and its early progeny, a somewhat different critique emerges from the dissenting opinions of Justice Harlan.
There were two major holdings in Baker v. Carr. (14) First, nonjusticiable "political questions," including those found in Guarantee Clause cases, arise from the relationship between the judiciary and the coordinate branches of the federal government, not between federal courts and the states.
(36) As in Baker v. Carr, he explained why favoring rural counties easily passed the applicable rational basis test under the Equal Protection Clause.
Supreme Court issued its famous "one man, one vote" ruling, in the Baker v. Carr case in 1962.
The Baker v. Carr ruling came down in March of 1962.
"Our conclusion is rooted in the principles of Baker v. Carr. Despite the dissent's cataclysmic and speculative projections about the sweep of our opinion, our decision boils down to letting the common law property claims proceed to the next stage and foreclosing the political, human rights and war-related claims.
The Court then applies the Baker v. Carr formulations to this case: "Beginning logically with the first Baker test, we divine no explicit constitutional reference that is applicable in this case ...