Running head: BAKER V.

CARR

Analyzing a Supreme Court Case: Baker v. Carr

West Career and Technical Academy
Amanda Cordero and Isabella Tang
May 7, 2015
Period 5

BAKER V. CARR

2
Analyzing a Supreme Court Case: Baker v. Carr

The case of Baker v. Carr included the defendant, Charles Baker, along with other
Tennessee citizens, who found that a 1901 law designed to appropriate the seats for the
Tennessees General Assembly was ignored. This case exhibited how Tennessee's
reapportionment efforts basically ignored economic growth along with population changes in
Tennessee. This case raised the question of whether or not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction
over legislative apportionment. The federal court in Tennessee refused to hear this case under the
political question doctrine. The case was later appealed to the Supreme Court.
Arguments for the plaintiff (Charles Baker) stated that that the Tennessee State
Constitution required legislative districts to be redrawn every ten years, which was the federal
census law of 1901, was violated and Tennessee hadnt redistricted since the census dated back
in 1901, when the law was made effective. Since 1901, the population of Shelby County, where
Baker resided, had changed substantially to about ten times more residents than the rural
districts. Baker argued that they were underrepresented. Baker argued, representationally, the
votes of rural citizens were worth more than the urban citizens (Baker V. Carr, n.d.). This led
to the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendments condition of equal protection was being
violated.
Arguments for the defendants (Joe Carr) stated Carr was not the person responsible for
setting district lines. However, it was found that he was the person who was responsible for the
conduct of elections in the state as well as for the publication of district maps. It was argued that
the legislative districts were political and not judicial questions; therefore the courts had no say
in the matter. It was also stated that the case of legislative malapportionment was to be dealt with
through the political process, not judicial.

BAKER V. CARR

The Tennessee Supreme Court agreed that no coercive relief could be granted; it said:
There is no provision of law for election of our General Assembly by an election at large over
the State (Redistricting in, 2013). The majority decision of the Court was decided on March
26, 1962, with a 6 - 2 decision in favor of Baker. The Supreme Court took the case on appeal and
decided that the issue was justiciable. The Court remanded and found that the plaintiff, Baker,
had stance to sue. The Court then stated that the case was not a matter of the Guaranty Clause of
Article IV but of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice William J. Brennan wrote the majority decision, laying out six factors that needed to
be considered as well as reformed what the political question was. Justice Brennan stated that the
rights of voters needed to be protected and not exploited. This allowed the majority to decide that
the case didnt present a political question that prevented judicial review. The majority opinion
stated that the courts were within their legal rights to determine if the state had violated the
Fourteenth Amendment by not redistricting. There were three concurring opinions and two
dissenting opinions written. Justice William O. Douglas, Justice Clark, and Justice Stewart wrote
the three concurring opinions. The three concurring opinions were different from the majority
opinion and dissenting opinions because they wanted to put aside the political question of the
case involving the separation of powers. The question asked in the concurring opinions was:
may a State weigh [t] the vote of one county or one district more heavily than it weights the
vote in another? (Baker v. Carr, n.d.).
The dissenting opinion was handed down after a year it was initially argued. There were two
dissenting opinions written by Mr. Justice Frankfurter along with Justice John Harlan. In both
dissenting opinions, it was argued that the federal equal protection clause didnt prevent a State
from choosing an electoral legislative structure that it thought was suitable to its people. This

BAKER V. CARR

opinion also stated that if a State chose to distribute the representation of electoral voting based
on a geographical scale and not a census, it is entitled to equal protection under the Court.
This case was important because it led to government to force states to redistrict in the 1960s.
The decision of Baker v Carr proved that the courts would pass through the political threshold in
order to protect the rights of voting citizens as well as paved the way for future redistricting. This
case also opened the door for judicial review on redistricting as well as catalyzed many lawsuits
and the recognition of unequal voting districts.

References

BAKER V. CARR

Baker v. Carr :: 369 U.S. 186 (1962) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. (2014). Retrieved
from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/369/186/case.html
Baker v. Carr: The Most Important Voting Rights Decision of the Twentieth Century. (2012,
June 21). Retrieved from http://scarinciattorney.com/baker-v-carr-the-most-importantvoting-rights-decision-of-the-twentieth-century/
Baker v. Carr | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_6
Baker v. Carr | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/369/186
Redistricting in America Baker v. Carr (1962). (2013). Retrieved from
http://www.redistrictinginamerica.org/baker/