What was an effect of the supreme courts one person one vote ruling baker v Carr?

Answer 1

Baker v. Carr, (1962) set an important precedent when the US Supreme Court decided for the first time that apportionment, or congressional districting, was no longer simply a political question (one for the legislatures to decide), but could be remediated in a court of law.

Baker was the appeal of a complaint against the way the State of Tennessee drew its state legislative district map, such that people living in cities had less of a voice in government than people in rural areas. A 1901 state law allowed Tennessee to divide legislative districts geographically, so that each district covered approximately the same number of square miles, but neglecting the difference in population between rural and urban areas. As a result, people in less populated (rural) areas had more representatives in state government than people in cities. Rural voters' concerns received priority over urban voters' concerns.

The US Supreme Court overturned the Tennessee law as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. The Court ordered the State to reapportion their districts according to the census count so each had approximately the same number of voters, rather than the same size territory.

The Court later addressed similar problems related to apportionment in other state legislature in Westbury v. Sanders, (1964) and of US Congressional districts in the House of Representatives, in the case Reynolds v. Sims, (1964), equalizing voting power under the doctrine of "one man, one vote." (This is also referred to as "one person, one vote," which is gender-neutral).

Case Citation:

Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962)

Answer 2

Baker v. Carr, (1962) was important because the US Supreme Court reversed their earlier decision that apportionment was an issue for the legislative branch to determine, and not a matter for the courts to decide. When Congress and the state legislatures failed to act to provide equal representation by redrawing the state districting maps, the Supreme Court decided it could intervene after all.

Baker involved voter representation in the Tennessee State legislature. A 1901 state law changed the apportionment map dividing Tennessee into legislative districts to make each district roughly the same size in square miles, but neglecting the difference in population between rural and urban areas. As a result, people in less populated (rural) areas had more representatives in state government than people in cities. Rural voters' concerns received priority over urban voters' concerns.

The US Supreme Court overturned the 1901 law as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. The Court ordered the State to reapportion their districts so each had approximately the same number of voters, rather than the same size territory.

The Supreme Court later addressed a similar problem related to apportionment of congressional districts as applied to all states in Westberry v. Sanders, (1964) and in the US House of Representatives, in the case Reynolds v. Sims, (1964).

Case Citation:

Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962)