Baker v carr case brief. Required Supreme Court Case: Baker v. Carr (1962) 2023-01-05

Baker v carr case brief Rating: 5,4/10 644 reviews

Baker v. Carr, also known as the "One Man, One Vote" case, was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1962. The case involved a challenge to the Tennessee state legislative apportionment plan, which gave rural districts greater representation than urban districts, despite the fact that the urban districts had significantly larger populations.

At the time, Tennessee's apportionment plan had not been revised since 1901, and as a result, urban areas were significantly underrepresented in the state legislature. Charles Baker and several other plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against Joe Carr, the Tennessee Secretary of State, arguing that the state's apportionment plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the apportionment plan was unconstitutional. In his majority opinion, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote that "legislators represent people, not trees or acres," and that "legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." He went on to say that "voters, not fair representation, is the controlling consideration."

The decision in Baker v. Carr had far-reaching consequences, as it established the principle of "one man, one vote," which requires that legislative districts be apportioned based on population rather than geographic area. This principle has since been applied to all levels of government, including federal and state elections.

In addition to its impact on apportionment, the Baker v. Carr case also marked the first time that the Supreme Court had addressed the issue of political gerrymandering, in which district boundaries are drawn in a way that favors one political party over another. While the Court did not rule on the specific issue of gerrymandering in this case, it did set the stage for future challenges to gerrymandered districts.

Overall, the Baker v. Carr case played a crucial role in shaping the modern political landscape, ensuring that every vote is given equal weight and that all citizens have an equal say in the political process. It remains an important precedent in the ongoing fight for fair and representative government.

baker v carr

baker v carr case brief

In my view, the ultimate decision today is in the greatest tradition of this Court. Legislative apportionment questions are generally justiciable. Green, that the Court based its decision upon the determination that the statute represented a rational state policy. Acts of 1961, S. They brought suit in a Federal District Court in Tennessee under 42 U. In the instance of nonjusticiability, consideration of the cause is not wholly and immediately foreclosed; rather, the Court's inquiry necessarily proceeds to the point of deciding whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined, and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially molded.

Next

Baker v. Carr: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact

baker v carr case brief

However, Commissions are given discretion to depart from the strict application of the local boundary rule to avoid excessive disparities between the electorate of a constituency and the electoral quota, or between the electorate of a constituency and that of neighboring constituencies. McCanless case, supra, introduces a factor peculiar to this litigation, which only emphasizes the duty of declining the exercise of federal judicial jurisdiction. While the Tennessee Constitution speaks of the number of "qualified voters," the exhibits attached to the complaint use figures based on the number of persons 21 years of age and over. § 1343 4 gives the federal courts authority to award damages or issue an injunction to redress the violation of "any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote. An apportionment case may be reviewed on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, so long as these grounds are independent from political question elements. The Cherokees brought an original suit in this Court to enjoin Georgia's assertion of jurisdiction over Cherokee territory and abolition of Cherokee government and laws. If any provision of these Terms of Use is held by a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable for any reason, such provision shall be eliminated or limited to the minimum extent such that the remaining provisions of the Terms of Use will continue in full force and effect.

Next

baker v. carr

baker v carr case brief

It is but a branch of the omnipotence claimed by Parliament to pass bills of attainder, belonging to the same dangerous and arbitrary family with martial law. You may use these features solely as they are provided by us, and solely with respect to the content they are displayed with and otherwise in accordance with any additional terms and conditions we provide with respect to such features. The House -- and now the Senate -- are chosen by the people. Urban areas also received more power at the expense of rural areas. As in other cases, the proper place for the trial is in the trial court, not here.

Next

Required Supreme Court Case: Baker v. Carr (1962)

baker v carr case brief

You hereby irrevocably consent to the jurisdiction of those courts for such purposes. The plaintiffs in Alabama sued various state and political party officials charged with duties in connection with state elections, claiming that the malapportioned state legislature violated the Equal Protection Clause. These exemplify the modern, non-technical approach to pleading, and have served as the model for the pleading provisions of many states. Legislative Apportionment The process by which legislative seats are distributed among the areas entitled to representation. Broom, reversing reviewed and the decree reversed. Since they press the same claims as do the initial plaintiffs, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the intervenors would have standing to maintain this action in their asserted representative capacities.

Next

Baker_v_Carr_Case_blog.sigma-systems.com

baker v carr case brief

This trend shows that the scope of the political question doctrine is shrinking, although this may be tempered by increasingly strict limits on standing. Any legal suit, action, or proceeding arising out of, or related to, these Terms of Use or the Website shall be instituted exclusively in the federal courts of the United States or the courts of the State of New Jersey in each case located in the County of Monmouth although we retain the right to bring any suit, action, or proceeding against you for breach of these Terms of Use in your country of residence or any other relevant country. While I join the opinion of the Court and, like the Court, do not reach the merits, a word of explanation is necessary. Carr, 187 Baldwin v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, See Hunter v. IV, § 2; Wis.

Next

Baker V blog.sigma-systems.com

baker v carr case brief

Notwithstanding these provisions, the State Legislature has not reapportioned itself since 1901. Early in January, 1959, the 61st Session of the Minnesota Legislature will convene, all of the members of which will be newly elected on November 4th of this year. Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Today we would ask with him: ". For the sequel see Application of Lamb, 67 N. Citing the political question doctrine, Tennessee argued that courts could not provide a remedy for this issue.

Next

Baker v. Carr (1962)

baker v carr case brief

Among the ten late Confederate States affected by the Reconstruction Acts, in only four did it appear that apportionment of both state legislative houses would or might be based strictly on population. While trying Nixon for impeachment, a Senate committee received evidence and testimony from Nixon and presented their findings to the full Senate who impeached him. YOUR USE OF THE WEBSITE, ITS CONTENT, AND ANY SERVICES OR ITEMS OBTAINED THROUGH THE WEBSITE IS AT YOUR OWN RISK. United States, Terlinden v. This situation is directly attributable to considerable underrepresentation of cities in the legislatures of most states.

Next

Baker v. Carr

baker v carr case brief

II, §§ 4 to 6; some excluded aliens, e. Congress has exercised that power in 28 U. Carr, is the duly elected, qualified and acting Secretary of State of the State of Tennessee, with his office in Nashville in said State, and, as such, he is charged with the duty of furnishing blanks, envelopes and information slips to the County Election Commissioners, certifying the results of elections and maintaining the records thereof, and he is further ex officio charged, together with the Governor and the Attorney General, with the duty of examining the election returns received from the County Election Commissioners and declaring the election results, by the applicable provisions of the Tennessee Code Annotated, and by Chapter 164 of the Acts of 1949, inter alia. Our decisions plainly support this conclusion. This, of course, is the practical effect of any allocation of power within the institutions of government. The legislatures of our land should be made as responsive to the Constitution of the United States as are the citizens who elect the legislators. And it is further perfectly evident that the variations are attributable to nothing more than the circumstance that the then enumeration of voters resulted in fractional remainders with respect to which the precise formula of the Tennessee Constitution was, in some instances, slightly disregarded.

Next

Baker v. Carr brief

baker v carr case brief

Two of the opinions expressing the views of four of the Justices, a majority, flatly held that there was jurisdiction of the subject matter. Instead of chasing those rabbits, he should first pause long enough to meet appellants' proof of discrimination by showing that, in fact, the present plan follows a rational policy. 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. I have searched diligently for other "practical opportunities" present under the law. Allwright, supra ; suits for declaratory relief and for an injunction Terry v.

Next