Baker v.
Carr Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied:
§ 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.
Baker v. Carr Case Brief
Statement of the 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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:
1. The jurisdiction is proper over the subject
matter,

2. Baker states a justiciable cause of

action under which he should be entitled to
relief, and

3. 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: