Baker v.

Carr

Subject:

Legislative Apportionment

Facts:

Under the Tennessee Constitution, legislative districts were required to be drawn

every ten years. The purpose was to adjust to changes in the state’s population.
Baker, a Republican citizen of Shelby County, brought suit against the Secretary of
State claiming that the state had not been redistricted since 1901 and Shelby
County had more residents than rural districts. Baker’s argument stated that
because the districts had not been redrawn and the rural district had ten times
fewer people, the rural votes essentially counted more denying him equal
protection of the law. Tennessee claimed that redistricting was a political question
and could not be decided by the courts under the Constitution.

Issue:

WON an equal protection challenge to a malapportionment of state legislatures

considered non-justiciable as a political question.

Held:

No. A challenge brought under the Equal Protection Clause to malapportionment of

state legislatures is not a political question and is justiciable.

An issue is considered a non-justiciable political question when one of six tests are
met:

(1) Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to another political

branch;
(2) Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the
issue;
(3) Impossibility of deciding the issue without making an initial policy
determination of a kind not suitable for judicial discretion;
(4) Lack of respect for the other branches of government in undertaking
independent resolution in the case;
(5) Unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already
made; or
 (6) Potential for embarrassment for differing pronouncements of the issue by
different branches of government.

This claim does not meet any of the six tests and is justiciable. There are no
textually demonstrable commitments present regarding equal protection issues by
other branches of government. Judicial standards are already in place for
the adjudication of like claims. Since Baker is an individual bringing suit against the
state government, no separation of power concerns result.