Baker v. Carr (1962)

Supreme Court weighs in on an issue long thought to be out of the realm of the court: redistricting and Congressional representation.



Constitutional Principal

14th Amendment

Decision & Why it Matters

One Person One Vote Doctrine

altered political representation

SCOTUS & political questions

Baker v. Carr


Baker v. Carr, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1962, is a landmark case in the history of American constitutional law. It was a pivotal moment that opened the door for federal courts to adjudicate redistricting cases, which are disputes over the way electoral districts are drawn.

Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens filed a lawsuit against Joe C. Carr, the Secretary of State of Tennessee, in a challenge related to the apportionment (distribution) of seats in the Tennessee General Assembly. The plaintiffs argued that Tennessee had not redrawn its legislative districts since 1901, despite significant population shifts and growth. This failure to redraw the districts resulted in severe underrepresentation of urban areas and overrepresentation of rural areas in the legislature, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Legal Question

The central legal question in Baker v. Carr was whether the apportionment of legislative districts is a justiciable question that can be decided by federal courts. In other words, could courts intervene in issues of legislative redistricting, or was it a “political question” that should be resolved by the legislative branch alone?

The Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, ruled that the case presented justiciable questions, allowing federal courts to hear and decide cases about legislative apportionment. Justice William J. Brennan Jr., writing for the majority, argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause provides a judicial standard for evaluating the fairness of legislative apportionment.


Baker v. Carr is significant for several reasons:

  1. Judicial Intervention in Redistricting: The decision marked the first time the Court asserted the power to review and address state legislative apportionment issues, breaking new ground in the Court’s involvement in political questions.
  2. “One Person, One Vote”: Although the phrase wasn’t used in the Baker decision, the case set the stage for later rulings that established the principle of “one person, one vote,” ensuring that legislative districts must be approximately equal in population.
  3. Impact on Civil Rights: By allowing federal courts to address apportionment issues, Baker v. Carr facilitated the redistribution of political power in many states, often benefiting urban and minority populations that had been underrepresented.
  4. Opening the Floodgates: The decision led to a wave of litigation concerning redistricting, significantly affecting the political landscape of the United States by making electoral districts more reflective of demographic realities.

Baker v. Carr fundamentally changed the landscape of American electoral politics by confirming that courts have a role to play in ensuring fairness in the apportionment of legislative districts. It underscored the judiciary’s ability to enforce constitutional guarantees, particularly those of equal protection under the law, thus ensuring that every citizen’s vote has equal weight. This case is a cornerstone in the development of constitutional law, representing a crucial step towards equality and fairness in American democracy.