Baker et al. v. Carr et al.

Case Summary of Baker v. Carr:

 A Tennessee resident brought suit against the Secretary of State claiming
that the failure to redraw the legislative districts every ten years, as outlined
in the state constitution, resulted in rural votes holding more votes than urban
votes.
 The state claimed redistricting was a political question and non-justiciable.
 Baker petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States.
 The Supreme Court held that an equal protection challenge to
malapportionment of state legislatures is not a political question because is
fails to meet any of the six political question tests and is, therefore,
justiciable.

Procedural History:

Baker claimed the malapportionment of state legislatures is justiciable and the

state of Tennessee argued such an issue is a political question not capable of
being decided by the courts. Baker petition to the United States Supreme Court.

Issue and Holding:

Is an equal protection challenge to a malapportionment of state legislatures

considered non-justiciable as a political question? No.

Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied:

A challenge brought under the Equal Protection Clause to malapportionment of

state legislatures is not a political question and is justiciable.

Judgment:

Remanded to the District Court for consideration on the merits.

Reasoning:

The current case is different than Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), because it
is brought under the Equal Protection Clause and Luther challenged
malapportionment under the Constitution’s Guaranty Clause.

1
An issue is considered a non-justiciable political question when one of six
tests are met:

1. Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to another political

branch;
2. Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the
issue;
3. Impossibility of deciding the issue without making an initial policy
determination of a kind not suitable for judicial discretion;
4. Lack of respect for the other branches of government in undertaking
independent resolution in the case;
5. Unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already
made; or
6. Potential for embarrassment for differing pronouncements of the issue by
different branches of government.

This claim does not meet any of the six tests and is justiciable. There are no
textually demonstrable commitments present regarding equal protection
issues by other branches of government. Judicial standards are already in
place for the adjudication of like claims. Since Baker is an individual bringing
suit against the state government, no separation of power concerns result.

Political question doctrine "essentially a function of the separation of

powers"

Concurring and Dissenting opinions:

Concurring (Douglas):

Since the right to vote is inherent in the Constitution, each vote should hold equal
weight. The design of a legislative district which results in one vote counting
more than another is the kind of invidious discrimination the Equal Protection
Clause was developed to prevent.

Concurring (Stewart):

The dissenting and concurring opinions confuse which issues are presented in
this case. The majority’s three rulings should be no more than whether:

The jurisdiction is proper over the subject matter,

Baker states a justiciable cause of action under which he should be entitled to
relief, and

2
Baker has standing to challenge Tennessee’s apportionment statutes.
In addition, the proper place for this trial is the trial court, not here.

Dissenting (Frankfurter and Harlan):

The majority’s decision fails to base its holding on both history and existing
precedent. Such failure violates both judicial restraint and separation of powers
concerns under the Constitution. Prior cases involving the same subject matter
have been decided as nonjusticiable political questions. The difference between
challenges brought under the Equal Protection Clause and the Guaranty Clause
is not enough to decide against existing precedent.

In addition, the majority’s analysis is clouded by too many indirect issues to focus
on the real issue at hand. The issue in the case is whether or not the complaint
sufficiently alleged a violation of a federal right to the extent a district court would
have jurisdiction. The complaint does not state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
12(b)(6). The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not
suggest legislatures must intentionally structure their districts to reflect absolute
equality of votes. The complaint also fails to adequately show Tennessee’s
current system of apportionment is so arbitrary and capricious as to violate the
Equal Protection Clause.

Significance:

Baker v. Carr outlined that legislative apportionment is a justiciable non-political

question. It established the right of federal courts to review redistricting issues,
when just a few years earlier such matter were categorized as “political
questions” outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

Sources:
https://legaldictionary.net/baker-v-carr/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/369/186
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43834.pdf