1. A Supreme Court case that held that federal courts could hear cases that claimed that malapportionment of state legislatures violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Title. Tennessee voters seek a reapportionment of state assembly distrcts. Harlan wrote the following in his dissent:Ballotpedia features 312,818 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Associate Justice Robert Jackson did not participate in the case. In Baker v Carr (1962), the Court concluded that the political question doctrine did not bar courts from reaching the merits of a challenge brought against Tennessee's system of apportioning its state legislature. Chief Justice Harlan Stone died in April 1946, after the conclusion of oral argument in the case but prior to the decision date. Chapter. 129. 2d 663, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 1567 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Associate Justice Hugo Black penned a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Associate Justices William Douglas and Frank Murphy.Charles Baker and other Tennessee citizens filed suit in the Associate Justices Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall Harlan penned separate dissents. The Court’s willingness to address legislative reapportionment in this Tennessee case paved the way for the “one man, one vote” standard of American representative democracy. Page. 369 U.S. 186, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. Quick Notes. Charles Rhyne’s oral argument in Baker v. Carr was recorded on April 19, 1961. Topic. Residents were left feeling as though their votes were diluted. Opinion for Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. Baker v. Carr (1962) Baker v. Carr (1962) Primary tabs. Case or Controversy Requirement and the Passive Virtues. Supreme Court of the United States. Baker v. Carr was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1962. Baker v. Carr was a Supreme Court case that determined apportionment to be a judicable issue. The Plaintiffs, Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens (Plaintiffs), alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. By holding that such cases were justiciable, the Supreme Court paved the way for federal courts (and not just state courts) to hear and decide on reapportionment issues.Plaintiff had sought to force reapportionment of voting districts in Tennessee on the ground that unequal representation was unconstitutional; the lower courts had denied relief on the grounds of non-justiciability. In 1955, Chief Justice Earl Warren launched an oral history project—the audio recording of oral arguments in cases that come before the Supreme Court. Citation. A Supreme Court case that held that federal courts could hear cases that claimed that malapportionment of state legislatures violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Shelby County, Tennessee failed to reapportion legislative district lines in agreement with federal census records. Explore Course Hero's library of literature materials, including documents and Q&A pairs. The Tennessee Constitution required that legislative districts be redrawn every ten years to adjust for changes in population. 1962 . 2d 663 (1962) Brief Fact Summary. And like Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause could have a long-lasting impact. By holding that voters could challenge the constitutionality of electoral apportionment in federal court, Baker v. Carr opened the doors of the federal courts to a long line of apportionment cases. Note: Landmark Cases, C-SPAN’s series on historic Supreme Court decisions—produced in cooperation with the National Constitution Center—continues on Monday, December 7 at 9 p.m.