Baker vs Carr

Facts: Under the Tennessee Constitution, legislative districts were required to be drawn every ten years.
The purpose was to adjust to changes in the state’s population. Baker, a Republican citizen of Shelby
County, brought suit against the Secretary of State claiming that the state had not been redistricted
since 1901 and Shelby County had more residents than rural districts. Baker’s argument stated that
because the districts had not been redrawn and the rural district had ten times fewer people, the rural
votes essentially counted more denying him equal protection of the law. Tennessee claimed that
redistricting was a political question and could not be decided by the courts under the Constitution.

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: Is an equal protection challenge to a malapportionment of state legislatures considered non-

justiciable as a political question?

Held: No. An issue is considered a non-justiciable political question when one of six tests are met:

- Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to another political branch;

- Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue;
- Impossibility of deciding the issue without making an initial policy determination of a kind not
suitable for judicial discretion;
- Lack of respect for the other branches of government in undertaking independent resolution in
the case;
- Unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or
- 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.