Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Baker V Carr (Case Digest by H. Caputol)
Baker V Carr (Case Digest by H. Caputol)
Baker V Carr (Case Digest by H. Caputol)
Procedural History:
Judgment:
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.
1
An issue is considered a non-justiciable political question when one of six
tests are met:
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 (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.
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:
2
Baker has standing to challenge Tennessee’s apportionment statutes.
In addition, the proper place for this trial is the trial court, not here.
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:
Sources:
https://legaldictionary.net/baker-v-carr/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/369/186
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43834.pdf