Baker v. Carr Court Case Brief
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Miami Dade College, Miami *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1060C
Subject
Political Science
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by machingaby12
Gabrielle Machin AP Period:7
Baker v. Carr Court Case Brief Summary:
The historic case of Baker v. Carr dealt with the problems of political representation and the idea of "one person, one vote." Tennessee's apportionment system, which had not been revised
in decades and resulting in a large difference in voting power between urban and rural areas, was challenged by Charles Baker and other citizens. Voters in Tennessee, led by Charles Baker, challenged the state's apportionment method, which disproportionately favored rural over urban areas and created a widening gap in voting power. Baker claimed that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was broken by this.
outcomes: The Baker v. Carr ruling by the Supreme Court had a significant impact on the equal representation principle. The Court ruled that legislative apportionment was a justiciable matter, meaning that federal courts could consider and provide a decision on it. This ruling made it possible for federal courts to get involved in state redistricting disputes in order to guarantee more equitable representation.
Majority Opinion: The majority opinion was expressed by Justice William J. Brennan Jr. By a vote of 6-2, the Court decided that the Tennessee apportionment plan was open to judicial review and that the matter
was justiciable. Justice Brennan underlined that because the parliamentary districting process dilutes the voting power of residents in more populous areas, it denies people equal protection under the law.
Gabrielle Machin AP Period:7
Baker v. Carr Court Case Brief Dissent:
The choice significantly altered the political and electoral landscape in the United States. It paved the way for later rulings that mandated states redistrict their legislative assemblies to provide more fair representation. Justice John Marshall Harlan II and Justice Felix Frankfurter both dissented. They maintained that the matter was one of politics and that the federal courts had no right to get involved. Concerned that the Court was getting too involved in the "political thicket" of apportionment disputes, Justice Frankfurter felt that these were better left to the political processes taking place inside the states.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help