Baker v. Carr 1962
| Author | Daniel Brannen, Richard Hanes, Elizabeth Shaw |
| Pages | 802-807 |
Page 802
Appellants: Charles W. Baker and others
Appellees: Joe E. Carr and others
Appellants' Claim: That voting districts drawn in a way that produces unequal political representation violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Chief Lawyers for Appellants: Charles S. Rhyme, Z.T. Osborn, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Appellees: Jack Wilson, Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee
Justices for the Court: Hugo L. Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Potter Stewart, Chief Justice Earl Warren
Justices Dissenting: Felix Frankfurter, John Marshall Harlan II (Charles Evans Whittaker did not participate)
Date of Decision: March 26, 1962
Decision: Ruled in favor of Baker by finding that constitutional challenges to apportionment could be addressed by federal courts.
Significance: This decision opened the door for under represented voters to have their voting districts redrawn under the direction of federal courts. The ruling initiated a decade of lawsuits eventually resulting in a redrawing of the nation's political map. The decision represented a major shift in the Court's position on the relationship of voting districts and constitutional protections.
Page 803
The purpose of voting in America is to give citizens the opportunity to determine who will be making governmental decisions. Those elected are expected to represent the interests of the people in their district when crafting laws and policies. The way boundaries of voting districts are drawn and the number of voters contained within each district largely determines how fairly people are represented by that process.
For example, electing members to the U.S. House of Representatives is based on population figures. Congress limits the number of House members to a total of 435 nationwide. The number of representatives from each state is subject to change every ten years depending on population changes recorded by the U.S. census, a count of people and where they live. States gaining or losing population between the 1990 census and 2000, must redraw their boundaries of their voting districts to reflect the population change. This process, known as "redistricting," is carried out to distribute, or "apportion," government representatives according to the population. The term "reapportionment" commonly refers to the entire process.
Reapportionment is a very political process. The political party in power in the state legislature controls how district boundaries will be drawn. If Republicans are in power, they will attempt to create or maintain "safe" Republican districts. If Democrats are in power they will do likewise. Another concern in reapportionment involves unfair...
To continue reading
Request your trial