Baker vs. Carr Spencer Albright

Charles W. Baker et al. v. Joe. C. Carr et al. The Baker vs. Carr case was first argued on April There was no decision made and it was reargued on October 9 th 1961 The final decision was made on March 26 th, The Baker vs. Carr case was first argued on April There was no decision made and it was reargued on October 9 th 1961 The final decision was made on March 26 th, 1962.

Public Policy The legislative districts were supposed to be redrawn every 10 years according to the census to provide for districts of equal population. The states 1901 apportionment statute violated the fourteenth amendment. Tennessee's method of unequally apportioning the members of the general assembly among the state's 95 counties unconstitutionally deprived people in the state of equal protection of the laws and was obsolete because of a significant growth and population shift since 1900.

Arguments of Plaintiff The plaintiff argued that they were not receiving equal protection on voting due to significant growth and population shift since the last time the legislative lines were drawn. These lines were supposed to be drawn every 10 years when the census is taken. Representationally, the votes of rural citizens were worth more than the votes of urban citizens. Baker's argument was that this discrepancy was causing him to fail to receive the "equal protection of the laws" required by the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff argued that they were not receiving equal protection on voting due to significant growth and population shift since the last time the legislative lines were drawn. These lines were supposed to be drawn every 10 years when the census is taken. Representationally, the votes of rural citizens were worth more than the votes of urban citizens. Baker's argument was that this discrepancy was causing him to fail to receive the "equal protection of the laws" required by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Arguments of Defendant Joe Carr was Secretary of State in Tennessee. Carr was not responsible for setting the district lines. That was the legislatures responsibility. Carr was sued ex officio as the person who was ultimately responsible for the conduct of elections in the state and for the publication of district maps. Apportionment was a political question and not dealt with appropriately in a court of law. Joe Carr was Secretary of State in Tennessee. Carr was not responsible for setting the district lines. That was the legislatures responsibility. Carr was sued ex officio as the person who was ultimately responsible for the conduct of elections in the state and for the publication of district maps. Apportionment was a political question and not dealt with appropriately in a court of law.

Amicus Curiae There were no amicus curiae briefs associated with this case

Supreme Court Decision The case originally had no clear majority from either side in conference. The court eventually split 6 to 2 in ruling that Baker’s case was justiciable. Baker did not have full protection of the law which violated the 14 th amendment. Charles Whitaker was so torn over the case he had to recuse himself. There were only 8 court votes. The case originally had no clear majority from either side in conference. The court eventually split 6 to 2 in ruling that Baker’s case was justiciable. Baker did not have full protection of the law which violated the 14 th amendment. Charles Whitaker was so torn over the case he had to recuse himself. There were only 8 court votes.

Precedent Redistricting issues were justiciable. Court formulated “one person, one vote” standard. Each individual had to be weighed equally in legislative apportionment. Redistricting issues were justiciable. Court formulated “one person, one vote” standard. Each individual had to be weighed equally in legislative apportionment.

Dissenting Opinion The dissenting opinion was filed by Justice Frankfurter and Justice Harlan. Frankfurter and Harland argued that the Court had cast aside history and judicial restraint, and violated the separation of powers between legislatures and Courts. The dissenting opinion was filed by Justice Frankfurter and Justice Harlan. Frankfurter and Harland argued that the Court had cast aside history and judicial restraint, and violated the separation of powers between legislatures and Courts.

sources