Talk:Baker v. Carr

Untitled

Justiciability is not a term understood by the English-speaking public in general. It appears that most other countries do not even use the term the way the US Supreme Court does. It may be helpful to make a short definition of what is meant by justiciability/justiciable within this article to assist readers with this term of art. Matthew K 06:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee had not reapportioned since 1901, rural districts over-represented, urban districts under-represented

The American Congress, Julian E. Zelizer, Editor, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004, “Chapter 31. The Warren Court and the Political Process,” L. A. Powe, Jr., page 550:

“ . . involving Tennessee (one of the states that had not touched its legislative districts since 1901) . . ”

“ . . Everyone understood that Baker v. Carr meant that overrepresented rural districts would be forced to cede some political power to more populous areas. . ”

&&&&&

Baker v. Carr - 369 U.S. 186 (1962) Held:

“ . . . We hold that the dismissal was error, and remand the cause to the District Court for trial and further proceedings consistent with this opinion. . . ”

I think some of our article is overly technical. Or, overly technical to the exclusion of the straightforward, for I think we do want to include both. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate discussion/holding

The Luther v Borden article correctly states that it is the law to this day - which is to say the Guarantee Clause is non-justiciable. Colegrove v Green simply relied on Luther, because there the appellant argued the districting violated the Guarantee Clause. The Colegrove article says it was overruled by Baker v Carr. As a practical matter, this might be true, but technically the articles ought to distinguish between justiciability under Equal Protection, and justiciability under the Guarantee Clause. 99.181.97.228 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes by the Burger Court in the early 1970s?

I recall reading that the Burger Court watered down Baker vs. Carr by ruling that legislative districts could be within 20%. A legislative district could be 20% over average population, or 20% under, and that would be deemed acceptable. FriendlyRiverOtter 21:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Application of BAKER by lower courts

THE OXFORD COMPANION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, SECOND EDITION (later republished as THE OXFORD GUIDE . . . ), editor-in-chief Kermit L. Hall, editors James W. Ely, Jr., Joel B. Grossman, Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York, Auckland, Cape Town, Dar es Salaam, etc., 2005, "BAKER v. CARR," Jack W. Peltason, page 70:

"It did not take long for other states to go through the door opened by Baker v. Carr. In one year, thirty-six states had become involved in reapportionment lawsuits. During the next several years the Court rounded out the reapportionment revolution. Justices Harlan and Frankfurter proved to be inaccurate prophets about the difficulties that the courts would have in finding appropriate judicial standards. The judges quickly retreated from the 'rationality test'--that apportionment plans were to be evaluated in terms of whether or not they had any rational basis--to what many think to be a simplistic but nonetheless more manageable standard of mathematical strict equality--*one person, one vote. Within a short time the Court had concluded that no factors--not geographical districts, nor a desire to keep governmental units intact, nor a federal, compromise in which one chamber would represent population and the other governmental units such as counties--but strictly equal population districts would pass constitutional muster. The Court, in a series of cases, moved from a requirement of 'substantial equality among districts' to 'precise mathematical equality' to a distinction between congressional districts where strict equality is required, and state legislative districts where some tolerance is allowed to permit consideration of other appropriate factors." [The extraneous comma in "federal, compromise" is just as it is in this reference.]

So, a distinction between Congressional districts (that is, the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C.) and state legislative districts? And maybe that's where the case law currently stands. So, please, feel free, you yes you, jump in and help! User:FriendlyRiverOtter|FriendlyRiverOtter]] (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles Baker (and co-plaintiffs) filed directly in federal court

THE OXFORD COMPANION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, SECOND EDITION (later republished as THE OXFORD GUIDE . . . ), editor-in-chief Kermit L. Hall, editors James W. Ely, Jr., Joel B. Grossman, Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York, Auckland, Cape Town, Dar es Salaam, etc., 2005, "BAKER v. CARR," Jack W. Peltason, page 68:

"Baker v. Carr was initiated in Tennessee in 1959 when a number of plaintiffs from Memphis, Nashville, and Knoxville brought an action before the federal district court in Nashville against Joseph Cordell Carr, the Tennessee secretary of state, and George McCanless, the attorney general. The Tennessee Constitution required the General Assembly to apportion the members of the General Assembly among the state’s ninety-five counties after each decennial census. But the last time it had done so was in 1901, and even then it had failed to give city voters a fair share of seats. The Tennessee courts had been equally unsympathetic and declined to intervene.

"The Baker plaintiffs, pointing out that the federal courts were the only forum that offered any promise of relief, asked for a *declaratory judgment that the Tennessee apportionment act was unconstitutional and an *injunction to prevent state officers from conducting any more elections under it. The three-judge district court, following established precedent, dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the relief requested and the legal wrongs alleged were not within the scope of judicial power conferred on federal courts by *Article III of the Constitution and the federal statutes implementing that article. Furthermore, said the district court, even if the Courts had jurisdiction, the questions presented to it were nonjusticiable, that is, they were '*political questions' unsuited for judicial inquiry and adjustment."

I would like to see a longer, fuller, richer article. And as long as we keep our article divided into sections, it will remain eminently readable. For example, we could have a two-paragraph section entitled "Justice Charles Evans Whittaker and his breakdown," in which we discuss his struggles, his reclusal, and his health problems. And in general I want to see us put the Baker case in a far richer social and political context. And for the years 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962, that context absolutely has to include the civil rights movement, and the opposition to such. If state legislators did anything to make voting more rational, more logical, more streamlined, they could be accused of helping African-Americans. I think the clunky, cluttered, illogical system was accepted in large part because it was felt that it kept black citizens in their place (it would absolutely astonish me if something like this was not going on).

Justice Frankfurter presented as cardboard figure?

The quote "Courts ought not to enter this political thicket" is a great quote. But the next part in our article where it's attributed to him saying that the remedy has to be achieved through the political process makes him look like a cardboard figure, like we're just using him to illustrate an intellectual position that makes for a well-ordered article. For the obvious response is, that if some citizens are over-represented, they're going to like the current system just fine and have no incentive to change things. Justice Frankfurter is a smart guy. He has to be aware of this. And he probably has an answer, too. It just might not be a "convenient" answer for the article. Well, I think we should include the answer as it is, in all its messiness. FriendlyRiverOtter 19:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The textbook answer might be that Frankfurter was the "traditionalist," Douglas the "radical," Chief Justice Earl Warren the "coalition builder," Brennan perhaps the "liberal intellectual," and so on and so forth. And that's fine to a certain extent. But if we can later go past these one-dimensional labels, that will make for such a richer article. People do not always act according to type. FriendlyRiverOtter 03:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC), and FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nashville Sit-ins around the same time. Worth including?

And as an example of what was going on in the Civil Rights Movement, the Nashville sit-ins took place from February to May, 1960. FriendlyRiverOtter 03:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Primary and Secondary Education Act of 1966

Our article attributes Baker vs. Carr as paving the way for the above. Maybe. Maybe as one cause. It hardly seems like there was enough time to really get rolling. And as far as the Voting Rights Act, that was Selma most of all. Of all of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's achievements, Selma was arguably the greatest, and the achievement of many, many other citizens as well. FriendlyRiverOtter 21:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Some social, political, and cultural context

Civil Rights Act of 1957

Civil Rights Act of 1960

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Voting Rights Act of 1965

Civil Rights Act of 1968

Voting Rights Act of 1970

---

The 24th Amendment--outlawing poll taxes in federal elections--was proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate on August 27, 1962, and ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures on January 23, 1964. [1]

24th Amendment

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[ratified Jan. 23, 1964]

---

"This violence was accompanied by the federal government’s abandonment of Reconstruction. In 1877, Southern Democrats struck a deal with GOP presidential candidate Rutherford B. Hayes to help Hayes win the contested election of 1876. In exchange, the military force that had enforced the radical political gains in the South was withdrawn. For supporting Hayes, the Southern Democrats were able to ensure white political supremacy for decades to come. The notorious laws of the Jim Crow era followed." [2]

Baker was at first the one to blame for everything, in which he should have lost this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.218.194.120 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baker v. Carr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130427172613/http://www.lawnix.com/cases/baker-carr.html to http://www.lawnix.com/cases/baker-carr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn’t this overruled?

Isn’t this ruling overruled in part by the Rucho v Common Cause ruling stating that Partisan Gerrymandering in the redistricting process is a nonjusticiable question beyond the scope of the federal judiciary? MetaPlanet (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)