0
The political question in Baker v. Carr, (1962) was whether the US Supreme Court could interfere with the legislative branch of government to decide how voter apportionment maps could be drawn.
The Supreme Court abandoned its position that voting district apportionment was a political question because the states (Tennessee, in this case) failed to draw district lines in a way that guaranteed equal representation to all voters. Bakerwas soon followed by two other cases addressing legislative representation, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) and Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 US 1 (1964).
Case Citation:
Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962)
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Who won Baker v Carr?
Baker won the case.
What are some statements describing Earl Warren's reasoning in the Baker v Carr case?
Baker v. Carr, (1962) was the first of a series of Supreme Court cases of the early 60s that established the federal judiciary's right to determine the constitutionality of legislative districting within a state (the allocation of state and federal representatives to voters).Justice William Brennan was the driving force behind the decision in Baker v. Carr, not Chief Justice Earl Warren.Brennan believed the case rested on the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, which allowed the federal courts to hear the case.Case Citation:Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962)
Will the US Supreme Court hear cases involving political questions?
The US Supreme Court believes "political questions" are appropriate issues for Congress, not the judiciary; however, they have ruled on certain cases regarding political redistricting (Baker v. Carr, (1962)) and racial gerrymandering (Shaw v. Reno, (1993), Miller v. Johnson, (1995)), where the legislature failed to address, or improperly addressed, issues that resulted in constitutional rights violations.
Who were the parties in the Baker v Carr case?
Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee voters were the petitioners (like a plaintiff) and Tennessee Secretary of State Joe C. Carr was the nominal respondent (like a defendant) in the case because his office was responsible for conducting elections, not because he or his office had been responsible for creating policy or voting districts. The Tennessee state legislature was being challenged, but Carr was sued ex officio in place of the state (which has sovereign immunity, per law).Case Citation:Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962)
In the US Supreme Court case Baker v. Carr what was Carr's claim?
Baker v. Carr, (1962) was the first of a series of Supreme Court cases of the early 60s that established the federal judiciary's right to determine the constitutionality of legislative districting within a state (the allocation of state and federal representatives to voters).BackgroundCharles Baker and a group of other voters brought legal action against the State of Tennessee in US District Court under (42 USC §§ 1983, 1986), Civil action for deprivation of rights. Their suit alleged that a 1901 state statute apportioned representatives of the Tennessee General Assembly arbitrarily and was in violation of the Tennessee Constitution. According to Baker et al., the formula being used under the 1901 law ignored economic and population growth centers, resulting in a situation where less populated voting districts were over-represented, while heavily populated districts were under represented.Baker sought a judgment declaring the 1901 law unconstitutional and requested an injunction against the State enjoining it from conducting future elections under that law.The federal District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and declared no claim was stated for which the courts could grant relief. Further, the District Court believed redistricting to be a legislative, rather than judicial, matter.Supreme CourtThe question before the Supreme Court was not whether the Tennessee law was constitutional, but whether the District Court had acted properly in dismissing the case.In a 6-2 opinion favoring Baker, the Court noted that, prior to 1901, the state had conducted a voter count by county, and distributed representation equally according to the number of voters in a given area. The Tennessee Constitution required the legislature follow a particular formula for apportionment of representatives, but the General Assembly ignored this mandate when they passed the 1901 statute.Justice Brennan, who delivered the opinion of the Court, held that the District Court had jurisdiction over the case because Baker's claim rested on the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.Further, the nature of the case was such that it could never be fairly resolved by legislature and required the intervention of the judiciary to ensure relief. The case was justicable.The Court outlined a six-part test for determining which cases were political (matters for the legislature), rather than judicial (matters for the court).Legislative IssuesThere exists a political entity with the power to address the situation.The court lacks a means of providing justice or a solution.The solution involves the creation of policy.The court would have to exercise powers constitutionally assigned to other branches.There is a requirement for adherence to an established political doctrine.More than one department could make concurrent but inconsistent decisions on the same question.This test was later refined and rewritten in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964), but served to delineate which cases could and could not be addressed by the judiciary. The Court also established the "one-man-one-vote" doctrine in Reynolds.Decision of the District Court reversed, case remanded back to US District Court for adjudication.Case Citation:Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962)
Who won Baker v Carr?
Baker won the case.
What is the citation of Baker v Carr?
The citation for Baker v. Carr is 369 U.S. 186 (1962). This landmark U.S. Supreme Court case dealt with the issue of legislative apportionment and the principle of "one person, one vote."
How are baker v carr and shaw v Reno synonomous?
Baker v. Carr (1962) and Shaw v. Reno (1993) are both landmark Supreme Court cases in the realm of redistricting. Baker v. Carr established the principle of "one person, one vote" which requires states to draw legislative districts with equal populations. Shaw v. Reno further clarified that race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing districts, setting limits on racial gerrymandering.
What resulted from the supreme court decisions in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims?
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.
What are some statements describing Earl Warren's reasoning in the Baker v Carr case?
Baker v. Carr, (1962) was the first of a series of Supreme Court cases of the early 60s that established the federal judiciary's right to determine the constitutionality of legislative districting within a state (the allocation of state and federal representatives to voters).Justice William Brennan was the driving force behind the decision in Baker v. Carr, not Chief Justice Earl Warren.Brennan believed the case rested on the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, which allowed the federal courts to hear the case.Case Citation:Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962)
Will the US Supreme Court hear cases involving political questions?
The US Supreme Court believes "political questions" are appropriate issues for Congress, not the judiciary; however, they have ruled on certain cases regarding political redistricting (Baker v. Carr, (1962)) and racial gerrymandering (Shaw v. Reno, (1993), Miller v. Johnson, (1995)), where the legislature failed to address, or improperly addressed, issues that resulted in constitutional rights violations.
When was William V. Carr House created?
William V. Carr House was created in 1860.
Who were the parties in the Baker v Carr case?
Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee voters were the petitioners (like a plaintiff) and Tennessee Secretary of State Joe C. Carr was the nominal respondent (like a defendant) in the case because his office was responsible for conducting elections, not because he or his office had been responsible for creating policy or voting districts. The Tennessee state legislature was being challenged, but Carr was sued ex officio in place of the state (which has sovereign immunity, per law).Case Citation:Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962)
What are the landmark us supreme court cases on redistricting?
Baker v. Carr (redistricting is a justiciable issue) Westbury v. Sanders (one man, one vote) Shaw v. Reno (race can't be only consideration in redistricting)
What is the birth name of Gus Carr?
Gus Carr's birth name is Gustaro V. Carr.
What are the ratings and certificates for Jimmy Carr Comedian - 2007 V?
Jimmy Carr Comedian - 2007 V is rated/received certificates of: UK:15
What is it called when the US Supreme Court will not rule on issues they believe should be decided by another branch of government?
These are referred to as political questions, and are considered non-justiciable (not capable of, or appropriate for, determination by the courts).Sometimes the Court will originally deem a matter a political question then later change its mind if the government entity responsible for solving the problem (usually Congress) fails to take appropriate action. The Court may then accept a case formerly avoided under the political question doctrine if they involve infringement of constitutional rights.An example is Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962), in which the Supreme Court abandoned its position that voting district apportionment was a political question because the states (Tennessee, in this case) failed to draw district lines in a way that guaranteed equal representation to all voters. Bakerwas soon followed by two other cases addressing legislative representation, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) and Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 US 1 (1964).
