Baker v Carr
In the 1900s, new cities in Tennessee were growing in population, and in turn rural populations were in a decline. The state was supposed to change their voting districts by law, but they refused to do so. With this, representation was widely skewed. Rural districts had much more political power in proportion to their population in comparison with urban districts. Republican politician Charles Baker sued Joe Carr, the Tennessee Secretary of State, since it made local and state government increasingly inefficient. The initial question was whether rezoning was justiciable (allows the Supreme Court to intervene).
Breakdown Verdict.
A 6-2 decision in favor of Baker deemed that the Supreme Court was able to participate in this action. Justice Brennan, in his majority opinion, remarked that the Supreme Court has been implemented within political constitutionality conflicts. Thus, the nature of “one person, one vote” meant that these zones would be redrawn every 10 years, ensuring that every resident gets a seat at the table.
Result Going Forward.
With the new ruling, urban areas gained much more power in voting because of the adjusted zones to the census. Additionally, the courts were now able to step into political disputes such as rezoning, when previously the branches were strictly divided. Baker v Carr redefined the role of the judicial system as interpretative of all aspects of society, including the political view.
Do you agree with the verdict?
0%
0%