What is baker v carr. What was the impact of the Baker v Carr decision in the Supreme Court? 2022-12-25
What is baker v carr Rating:
9,1/10
1136
reviews
Baker v. Carr, also known as the "one man, one vote" case, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided in 1962. The case arose when Charles W. Baker, a Tennessee voter, filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Secretary of State, Joe Carr, alleging that the state's electoral districts were unconstitutional.
At the time, Tennessee's electoral districts were based on property ownership, which meant that some districts had significantly more voting power than others. Baker argued that this system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any person "equal protection of the laws."
The Supreme Court agreed with Baker, holding that the Tennessee electoral system violated the Equal Protection Clause because it gave disproportionate voting power to certain districts. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause requires states to draw their electoral districts in a way that ensures that each person's vote carries the same weight, regardless of where they live.
The decision in Baker v. Carr was a major victory for voting rights and democracy. It established the principle of "one man, one vote," which has been interpreted to mean that states must use population, rather than property ownership, as the basis for drawing electoral districts. This has helped to ensure that all citizens have an equal say in the political process, regardless of their economic status or the wealth of their district.
Baker v. Carr also had a significant impact on redistricting cases in the United States. Prior to the decision, redistricting cases were considered to be political questions that were not appropriate for judicial review. However, the Court's decision in Baker v. Carr established that redistricting cases are justiciable, meaning that they can be decided by the courts. This has allowed courts to play a crucial role in ensuring that states follow the principles of "one man, one vote" when drawing electoral districts.
Overall, Baker v. Carr is an important case that has had a lasting impact on voting rights and democracy in the United States. It has helped to ensure that all citizens have an equal say in the political process and has established the principle of "one man, one vote" as a fundamental principle of American democracy.
Baker v. Carr
If such questions had been raised, they would have been justiciable, and therefore would have required the calling into operation of judicial power. Acts of 1870 2d Sess. IV, § 3, cl. In apportioning the Senators among the different counties, the fraction that may be lost by any county or counties in the apportionment of members to the House of Representatives shall be made up to such county or counties in the Senate, as near as may be practicable. It would only darken counsel to discuss the relevance and significance of each of these assertedly distinguishing factors here and in the context of this entire line of cases. The Court has refused to exercise its jurisdiction to pass on "abstract questions of political power, of sovereignty, of government.
Baker v. Carr :: 369 U.S. 186 (1962) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
The Equal Protection Clause did not write an empty formalism into the Constitution. But this might not on its face be an 'invidious discrimination,' Williamson v. What was the ruling in Shaw v Reno? Brownell, Today's decision does not turn its back on these settled precedents. The United States Constitution itself did not largely adopt the principle of numbers. Sandoval, supra, 231 U. They will not stand impotent before an obvious instance of a manifestly unauthorized exercise of power. We must examine what the Assembly has done.
Baker v. Carr: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
In 1955, the Senate called for a study of reapportionment. As stated by Judge McLaughlin in Dyer v. National respect for the courts is more enhanced through the forthright enforcement of those rights rather than by rendering them nugatory through the interposition of subterfuges. Explicitly it begins with Colegrove v. Adams, supra ; suits by the United States under the Civil Rights Act to enjoin discriminatory practices. The colegrove doctrine, in the form in which repeated decisions have settled it, was not an innovation.
What was the impact of the Baker v Carr decision in the Supreme Court?
Instead, however, of doing any of these things, the attack on the statute here made is of a wholly different character. The Framers, carefully and with deliberate forethought, refused so to enthrone the judiciary. The decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is reversed and remanded. Instead, they should allow the political process to function independently. The right asserted is within the reach of judicial protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Two of the opinions expressing the views of four of the Justices, a majority, flatly held that there was jurisdiction of the subject matter. § 1343 3 , permanently enjoined officers of the State of Mississippi from conducting an election of Representatives under a Mississippi redistricting act, we reviewed the federal questions on the merits and reversed the District Court.
Questions have arisen under the Constitution to which adjudication gives answer although the criteria for decision are less than unwavering bright lines. Nevertheless, the dissenters attack it by the application of the HARLAN 'adjusted 'total representation" formula. Its acceptance would require us to turn our backs on the regard which this Court has always shown for the judgment of state legislatures and courts on matters of basically local concern In the last analysis, what lies at the core of this controversy is a difference of opinion as to the function of representative government. JUSTICE HARLAN joins, dissenting. Here appellants attack 'the State as a State,' precisely as it was perceived to be attacked in the Pacific States case, id.
Such doubt would have been inconsistent with the professed willingness to turn the decision on either the majority or concurring views in Wood v. Board of Education, Highland Farms Dairy, Inc. §§ 1983 and 1988, 42 U. II, § 1, cl. §§ 3-101 to 3-107. § 1343 3 and 42 U. But deference rests on reason, not habit.
A declaration devoid of implied compulsion of injunctive or other relief would be an idle threat. Second, § 2, for Senate apportionment based on numbers. §§ 1983, 1988 to redress the alleged deprivation of federal constitutional rights. There will be politics in reapportionment as long as a representative form of government exists. One plan might be to start with the existing assembly districts, consolidate some of them, and award the seats thus released to those counties suffering the most egregious discrimination. Further readings Charles, Guy-Uriel E.
Brennan also talked down Justices Black and Douglas from their usual absolutist positions to achieve a compromise. In particular, we shall discover that the nonjusticiability of such claims has nothing to do with their touching upon matters of state governmental organization. Baker felt that his vote was being devalued because rural areas had lower citizen-representative ratios. From its earliest opinions, this Court has consistently recognized a class of controversies which do not lend themselves to judicial standards and judicial remedies. When a district is composed of two or more counties, they shall be adjoining, and no county shall be divided in forming a district. Stanford Law Review 47 January. For as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not.
In Arkansas, the legislature was authorized, but not commanded, to reapportion periodically; it is not clear that equality was required. Lightfoot, To find such a political conception legally enforceable in the broad and unspecific guarantee of equal protection is to rewrite the Constitution. Only where, as here, the total picture reveals incommensurables of both magnitude and frequency can it be said that there is present an invidious discrimination. White would have been. Sex is another impermissible standard by reason of the Nineteenth Amendment. I, § 4, of the Constitution, because it is not invoked here and it involves different criteria, as the Court's opinion indicates. The enumeration commissioners in the counties were allowed "access to the U.
It has long been recognized and is accepted doctrine that there are indeed some rights guaranteed by the Constitution for the violation of which the courts cannot give redress. Both opinions demonstrate a predominant concern, first, with avoiding federal judicial involvement in matters traditionally left to legislative policy making; second, with respect to the difficulty -- in view of the nature of the problems of apportionment and its history in this country -- of drawing on or devising judicial standards for judgment, as opposed to legislative determinations, of the part which mere numerical equality among voters should play as a criterion for the allocation of political power; and, third, with problems of finding appropriate modes of relief -- particularly, the problem of resolving the essentially political issue of the relative merits of at-large elections and elections held in districts of unequal population. III, § 5, and, even where they do not, they do precisely fix the criteria for judicial judgment respecting the allocation of representative strength within the electorate. We shall then show that none of those threads catches this case. The Political Question Doctrine How best to resolve disputes over legislative apportionment is not a new question. § 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. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and Mr.
