Impact of Baker v. Carr (1962)

The United States Supreme Court, which had long toiled largely in the background, finally assumed its constitutionally mandated position as one of the three equal branches of government during the tenure (1953-1969) of Chief Justice Earl Warren. The decisions of the Warren Court reshaped the role of the judiciary, and in many instances, transformed American society. For most Americans, this assertion of power is reflected by well-known cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). But several lesser-known cases, dealing with more arcane issues, have been equally important. One such case is Baker v. Carr (1962), which greatly expanded the Court's jurisdiction and thus its reach. This paper will examine Baker v. Carr and its continuing impact on American law.

The plaintiffs in Baker were Tennessee voters who alleged that the state's system of apportioning its voting districts "debased" their votes, and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Tennessee had not re-apportioned its seats in the General Assembly for 60 years, even though the state's population had undergone dramatic changes, both in size and distribution. The population had shifted from predominantly rural to predominantly urban, yet rural districts maintained a disproportionate amount of power. Therefore, the votes of rural residents counted more than those of urban residents.

Related Essays

The United States Supreme Court .... v. Carr (1962), which greatly expanded the Court's jurisdiction and thus its reach. This paper will examine Baker v. Carr and its continuing impact on American .... (2128 9 )

THE AMERICAN SUPREME COURT .... that it must observe procedural due process in the impact of its .... leading decisions in the area of legislative redistricting, Baker v. Carr (1962), "a bold .... (2823 11 )

ince they did not invoke the Guaranty Clause, the case presented a justiciable issue. Thus, the judiciary properly exercised jurisdiction over this case. Brennan then rewrote the Political Question Doctrine, articulating a new standard based on the proposition that the Court should only turn down "political questions," not "political cases. Brennan cited several factors in determining whether political questions made a case non-justiciable. Those factors included "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving [the issue]; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial determination[.]" The rest of his factors are equally vague. So vague that some commentators have described the standards for Brennan's revised Political Question Doctrine as "useless" (Chemerinsky 126). Brennan likely intended that result, purposely muddying the waters to give the Court more flexibility. That way, if justice demanded, the Court could take any case without seeming to violate its precedents. If Brennan had articulated bright-line rules, and the Court had later ignored those standards, the Court's legitimacy would suffer. Brennan achieved his primary aim of

Category: Government - I