Required caseRedistricting & Malapportionment

Baker v. Carr

1962·Unit 2: Interactions Among Branches of Government

Legislative malapportionment claims are justiciable, opening the door to the “one person, one vote” principle.

Practice the comparison FRQRead the brief
Decided
1962
Clause at issue
Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection Clause
Course unit
Unit 2
Case number
5 of 14

Case brief

The three pieces every AP answer about this case should get right.

  1. 1

    The facts

    Tennessee voters challenged grossly unequal state legislative districts that had not been redrawn in decades despite major population shifts.

  2. 2

    The constitutional question

    Can federal courts hear challenges to state legislative districting under the Equal Protection Clause, or is redistricting a nonjusticiable political question?

  3. 3

    The holding

    The Court held that malapportionment claims are justiciable and may be reviewed by federal courts.

Why it matters

  • Unequal representation raises constitutional questions under the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • The case rejected the idea that all redistricting disputes are beyond judicial review.
  • It paved the way for later rulings requiring substantially equal population in legislative districts.

Check yourself

Three questions on Baker v. Carr: the holding, a common mix-up, and how it differs from another required case.

Question 1 of 3

Before Baker v. Carr (1962), federal courts often refused to hear lawsuits about the drawing of legislative districts, calling the issue a “political question.” What did the Supreme Court hold in Baker v. Carr?

SCOTUS comparison FRQ

Can you connect Baker v. Carr to a case you’ve never seen?

The exam hands you an unfamiliar case and asks how it relates to a required one. Practice that here: name the shared principle, state the holding, and explain the connection.

Start the comparison

You’ll compare it with

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

Three parts

  1. A. Identify the shared principle
  2. B. Describe the required case
  3. C. Explain the connection

Frequently asked questions

What did Baker let federal courts decide?

Claims that state legislative districts had become badly unequal. Tennessee had left its map in place for decades while population shifted. The Court said those equal-protection claims are justiciable, not political questions courts must refuse.

Is Baker the same thing as “one person, one vote”?

Baker opens that line of cases. It holds that courts may hear the malapportionment claim. The later rule that districts must have roughly equal populations is built on Baker. If the stem is about whether a court can hear the case, choose Baker.

How is Baker different from Shaw v. Reno?

Baker is about unequal population and court access. Shaw is about a map drawn mainly to sort voters by race. Both are redistricting cases under equal protection. They answer different questions.

What belongs in a comparison paragraph?

Baker is required. State the stale Tennessee districts, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the holding that malapportionment is a question courts can decide.

The other required cases