What resulted from the supreme court decisions in Baker v Carr and Reynolds v Sims?

Answer 1

The Supreme Court decisions in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims resulted in more equal representation. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court stated that state legislature districts had to be approximately equal in terms of population.

Answer 2

Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962) was the first case to determine state and federal legislatures were incapable of creating fair and reasonable solutions to voter districting, and decided representational misapportionment was a justiciable problem (could be solved by the courts). Prior to Baker, the Court had declined to intervene, referring to voter apportionment as a "political" problem (one that could only be solved through legislation), resulting in some voters (primarily rural) having more legislative representation than others (primarily urban).

Baker laid the groundwork for two 1964 landmark cases, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 US 1 (1964), that held Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution required voter district lines for the House of Representatives to be drawn so that each congressional district had a roughly equal population and equal representation; and Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964), which held Article IV, Section 4 required the states to have a "republican" government, and applied the same solution to state legislatures as to the House.

These decisions gave rise to the popular phrase, "one man, one vote" (or "one person, one vote") to summarize the Court's decisions in these cases.

In Wesberry, Justice Hugo Black wrote, in the opinion of the Court, "We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, § 2 that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" means that, as nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."

Chief Justice Earl Warren quoted Black's conclusion Reynolds v Sims, and laid out a set of prohibitions for the states in setting their voter districts.

"Although the Court -- necessarily, as I believe -- provides only generalities in elaboration of its main thesis . . . [the] Court nevertheless excludes virtually every basis for the formation of electoral districts other than "indiscriminate districting." In one or another of today's opinions, the Court declares it unconstitutional for a State to give effective consideration to any of the following in establishing legislative districts:

1. history
2. "economic or other sorts of group interests"
3. area
4. geographical considerations
5. a desire "to insure effective representation for sparsely settled areas"
6. "availability of access of citizens to their representatives"
7. theories of bicameralism (except those approved by the Court)
8. occupation
9. "an attempt to balance urban and rural power."
10. the preference of a majority of voters in the state."

By insisting both state and federal government adhere to constitutional principles that gives each voter equal representation, the Court laid a foundation for correcting political biases that favor one group of voters over another, thus equalizing voting power across the nation.