Baker v. Carr (1962)

更多类似内容

Oath of the Horatii

由Rachael McVicker

Education Timeline

由rigoberto duarte

CSUF CA Framework Mindmap

由Rebecca Binch

Historical Roots of Law

由Ashley Whiteford

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Dissenting opinions

Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter

that the Court ignored previous precedent and history regarding

Separation of powers between the legislatures and the courts

Judicial Restraint

Gill v. Whitford

In this case, the court ruled that partisan gerrymandering was justified since the plaintiffs could prove individual harm, only statewide harm.

Decision

Baker in a 6-2 decision

there is no reason a court should not be able to determine the validity of currently drawn districts

the equal protection clause is judicially enforceable.

Constitutional Issue

Charles Baker

Joe Carr

was not directly responsible for such redistricting

was eventually sued ex officio as Secretary of Tennessee

having responsibility of conducting elections and distributing district maps

people in rural areas were overrepresented compared to urban areas

offsetting the Fourteenth amendment

voting practices declared by states

accommodates selective incorporation

form a bridge between the 14th amendment and the Bill of Rights

the First amendment, regarding "one man, one vote"

providing equality of opportunity regarding a voice in government

The Free Speech Clause

the general public to question justiciable matters,

Essential Questions

depicts an ideal impact the Supreme Court has on the public

guarantees civil liberties away from government

ridiculing any form of infringement

contradicts the importance of embracing the foundations of the Constitution

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

preclearance is required by the federal government

a properly mandated system

Federalism

to practice any form of redistricting

not partial to racial gerrymandering

a fine line between racial and partisan gerrymandering

The Equal Protections Clause

Background

In the Mid-20th Century it became apparent that

many residents migrated from rural areas to cities

a district with 200 residents would have the same representation as a district with 2000 residents

Federal courts chose not to hear any cases pertaining to redistricting as they did not want to interfere with a power directly stated within the constitution.