BAKER V. CARR

Baker v. Carr (1962) was a Supreme Court case involving the apportionment of seats in state governing bodies. Tennessee was using sixty-year-old district boundaries in electing members of its legislature, despite the fact that they no longer reflected the true distribution of the population. By keeping old election district boundaries, it allotted rural citizens greater proportional representation than their counterparts in the growing cities. Not only did outdated apportionment ease the reelection of incumbent legislators; it also conveniently watered down the voting power of ethnic minorities and blacks who lived in the cities (often the only blacks permitted to vote). The number of Memphis voters electing one state representative was ten times the number of voters electing a representative in a rural district.

The Court had formerly considered state apportionment a "political question," better resolved by the legislative branch. "Courts ought not to enter this political thicket," it ruled in Colegrove v. Green (1946). In his 1962 majority opinion, however, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., declared that a case involving "a political right" did not necessarily hinge on "a political question." Courts could direct that district boundaries be redrawn to ensure citizens political rights, but where the lines would be drawn should be resolved politically by the elected branches. By implying the unconstitutionality of apportionment schemes of many states, the case prompted a flood of lawsuits contesting legislative districting. In resolving these later cases, the Court eventually established the principle of equal representation: "one man, one vote."

See also Suffrage.