Baker v. Carr (1962)
Submit a brief of the above case in the text box below. Your case brief should observe the case brief format found linked on the Constitutional Law page of this web site.
grutledge@rsu.edu
Hally Kirby
Constitutional Law
Rutledge
Case Brief
BAKER v. CARR, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
369 U.S. 186
BAKER ET AL. v. CARR ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. No. 6. Argued April 19-20, 1961. Set for reargument May 1, 1961. Reargued October 9, 1961. Decided March 26, 1962.
Facts of the Case: In the State legislature of Tennessee, representation was determined by a 1901 law setting the number of legislators for each county. Charles Baker was a resident of Shelby County, Tennessee and was also Mayor of Nashville. Baker filed suit against Joe Carr, the Secretary of State of Tennessee. Baker’s complaint alleged that the Tennessee legislature had not redrawn its legislative districts since 1901, in violation of the Tennessee State Constitution which required redistricting according to the federal census every 10 years. Baker, living in a more urban part of Tennessee, knew that the population had increased since 1901 and was arguing that under this 1901 law, voters were not being given the proper representation. Baker claimed that his 14th amendment of equal protection was being violated and filed an injunction to further halt any further elections until the districts were updated and redrawn to insure that each voter would be counted for. Baker’s claims were denied in the district court of Tennessee because of fear of the political issue and constitutional issue of jurisdiction concerning the reapportionment of legislation in Tennessee. The district court did not feel like it had the jurisdiction to deal with such an issue. The case then went before the Supreme Court.
Core Constitutional Issues: Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues. The Equal Protection Clause requires that each vote cast in state legislative elections be given approximately equal weight. May a State weight the vote of one county or one district more heavily than it weights the vote in another? No. Does the Federal District Court have the jurisdiction to give judicial review on legislative reapportionment? Yes.
The ruling of the Court: The Supreme Court concluded with a 6-2 ruling that District Court has the capability and jurisdiction to hear Baker’s claim of unequal protection under the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court said that the District Court could review such a case of a state’s constitutionality without the fear of it interrupting legislature’s political judgments’ because it is not a political question. For it to have been a political question, the issue would have needed clarification from the other branches of governments. Since Baker’s claim was a constitutional issue with no need of clarification from any other branch of government, there is no threat to the District Court’s judicial review. Basically the Court decided that the Baker plaintiffs could go back to federal court and pursue their lawsuit against the state of Tennessee. The Court also indicated that Tennessee's failure to abide by its own constitution in reapportioning voting districts should not limit the scope of the decision, but that any state whose apportionment methods fail to show a "rational basis" is open to suit by effected voters.
Majority Opinion: Justice Brennan- According to Justice Brennan, it is a mistake to think that every issue concerned with legislative districting raises political questions. This case is brought under Equal Protection Clause and the court has to power to decide under this issue. "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person . . . [t]o redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States .” Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted.
Concurring Opinion: Justice Douglas- The traditional test under the Equal Protection Clause has been whether a State has made "an invidious discrimination," as it does when it selects "a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment." We are told that a single vote in Moore County, Tennessee, is worth 19 votes in Hamilton County, that one vote in Stewart or in Chester County is worth nearly eight times a single vote in Shelby or Knox County. The opportunity to prove that an "invidious discrimination" exists should therefore be given the appellants. Justice Clark- “I believe it can be shown that this case is distinguishable from earlier cases dealing with the distribution of political power by a State, that a patent violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution has been shown, and that an appropriate remedy may be formulated.” Justice Stewart- “The Court today decides three things, and no more:(a) that the court possessed jurisdiction of the subject matter; (b) that a justiciable cause of action is stated upon which appellants would be entitled to appropriate relief, and (c). . . that the appellants have standing to challenge the Tennessee apportionment statutes.” Justice Stewart did not agree with the Court is being able to decide whether one vote is of same value as the other votes. The only thing that Justice Stewart wanted to address was whether Baker had a claim that could be heard by the district court of Tennessee.
Dissenting Opinion: Justice Harlan- However, in my opinion, appellants' allegations, accepting all of them as true, do not, parsed down or as a whole, show an infringement by Tennessee of any rights assured by the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, I believe the complaint should have been dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Justice Harlan believes that this indeed was a state issue and not a Supreme Court issue. He basically says that sometimes the words are clouded to claim Constitutional violations when they really are not issues that need such a higher courts judicial review. Justice John Harlan II argued that the federal equal protection clause does not prevent a State “from choosing any electoral legislative structure it thinks best suited to the interests, temper, and customs of its people.” If a State chose to “distribute electoral strength among geographical units, rather than according to a census of population,” he wrote, that choice “is…a rational decision of policy…entitled to equal respect from this Court.” Justice Frankfurter- Frankfurter, joined by John Marshall Harlan II, dissented vigorously and at length, arguing that the Court had shunted aside history and judicial restraint and violated the separation of powers between legislatures and Courts. Frankfurter expressed concern that this decision would interpret the Equal Protection Clause as requiring mathematically precise vote distribution and that the federal courts were opening themselves to involvement in an arena which has since "time out of mind" been determined by an "essentially political conflict of forces…".
