 Opinion, Brennan

 Concurrence, Douglas
 Concurrence, Clark
 Concurrence, Stewart
 Dissent, Frankfurter
 Dissent, Harlan

Baker v. Carr Case Brief

Statement of the 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.
Procedural History:
Baker claimed the malapportionment of state legislatures is justiciable and the state of Tennessee argued such an
issue is a political question not capable of being decided by the courts. Baker petition to the United States Supreme
Court.
Issue and Holding:
Is an equal protection challenge to a malapportionment of state legislatures considered non-justiciable as a political
question? No.
Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied:
A challenge brought under the Equal Protection Clause to malapportionment of state legislatures is not a political
question and is justiciable.

Judgment:
Remanded to the District Court for consideration on the merits.

Reasoning:
The current case is different than Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), because it is brought under the Equal
Protection Clause and Luther challenged malapportionment under the Constitution’s Guaranty Clause.

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.
Concurring and Dissenting opinions:
Concurring (Douglas):

Since the right to vote is inherent in the Constitution, each vote should hold equal weight. The design of a legislative
district which results in one vote counting more than another is the kind of invidious discrimination the Equal
Protection Clause was developed to prevent.

Concurring (Stewart):

The dissenting and concurring opinions confuse which issues are presented in this case. The majority’s three rulings
should be no more than whether:

1. The jurisdiction is proper over the subject matter,

2. Baker states a justiciable cause of action under which he should be entitled to relief, and
3. Baker has standing to challenge Tennessee’s apportionment statutes.
In addition, the proper place for this trial is the trial court, not here.

Dissenting (Frankfurter and Harlan):

The majority’s decision fails to base its holding on both history and existing precedent. Such failure violates
both judicial restraint and separation of powers concerns under the Constitution. Prior cases involving the same
subject matter have been decided as nonjusticiable political questions. The difference between challenges brought
under the Equal Protection Clause and the Guaranty Clause is not enough to decide against existing precedent.

In addition, the majority’s analysis is clouded by too many indirect issues to focus on the real issue at hand. The issue
in the case is whether or not the complaint sufficiently alleged a violation of a federal right to the extent a district court
would have jurisdiction. The complaint does not state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). The Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not suggest legislatures must intentionally structure their districts to reflect
absolute equality of votes. The complaint also fails to adequately show Tennessee’s current system of apportionment
is so arbitrary and capricious as to violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Significance:

Baker v. Carr outlined that legislative apportionment is a justiciable non-political question. It established the right of
federal courts to review redistricting issues, when just a few years earlier such matter were categorized as “political
questions” outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

FOUR PARTS OF THE DECISION

 1. Reversal of Federal Court Dismissal

In light of the District Court's treatment of the case: we hold today only (a) that the court possessed jurisdiction
of the subject matter; (b) that a justiciable cause of action is stated upon which appellants would be entitled to
appropriate relief, and (c) because appellees raise the issue before this Court, that the appellants have standing to
challenge the Tennessee apportionment statutes. [Footnote 16] Beyond noting that we have no cause at this stage
to doubt the District Court will be able to fashion relief if violations of constitutional rights are found, it is
improper now to consider what remedy would be most appropriate if appellants prevail at the trial.

2. Jurisdiction of the Subject Matter

It is clear that the cause of action is one which "arises under" the Federal Constitution.

3. Standing

The injury which appellants assert is that this classification disfavors the voters in the counties in which they
reside, placing them in a position of constitutionally unjustifiable inequality vis-a-vis voters in irrationally favored
counties. A citizen's right to a vote free of arbitrary impairment by state action has been judicially recognized as
a right secured by the Constitution when such impairment resulted from dilution by a false tally, or by a refusal
to count votes from arbitrarily selected precincts

4. Justiciability

That review reveals that, in the Guaranty Clause cases and in the other "political question" cases, it is the
relationship between the judiciary and the coordinate branches of the Federal Government, and not the federal
judiciary's relationship to the States, which gives rise to the "political question." We have said that,

"In determining whether a question falls within [the political question] category, the appropriateness
under our system of government of attributing finality to the action of the political departments and also
the lack of satisfactory criteria for a judicial determination are dominant considerations."

Coleman v. Miller: The non-justiciability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of
powers. Much confusion results from the capacity of the "political question" label to obscure the need for case-
by-case inquiry. Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to
another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been
committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court
as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. To demonstrate this requires no less than to analyze representative
cases and to infer from them the analytical threads that make up the political question doctrine. We shall then
show that none of those threads catches this case.

The opinion was finally handed down in March 1962, nearly a year after it was initially argued. The Court split 6 to
2 in ruling that Baker's case was justiciable, producing, in addition to the opinion of the Court by Justice William J.
Brennan, three concurring opinions and two dissenting opinions. Brennan reformulated the political question
doctrine, identifying six factors to help in determining which questions were "political" in nature. Cases that are
political in nature are marked by:

1. "Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;" as an

example of this, Brennan cited issues of foreign affairs and executive war powers, arguing that cases
involving such matters would be "political questions"
2. "A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;"
 3. "The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial
discretion;"
4. "The impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect
due coordinate branches of government;"
5. "An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;"
6. "The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one
question."

Frankfurter, joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, dissented vigorously and at length, arguing that the Court had
cast aside history and judicial restraint, and violated the separation of powers between legislatures and Courts.[5] He
wrote:
Appellants invoke the right to vote and to have their votes counted. But they are permitted to vote and their votes are
counted. They go to the polls, they cast their ballots, they send their representatives to the state councils. Their
complaint is simply that the representatives are not sufficiently numerous or powerful.

Case Summary of Baker v. Carr:

 A Tennessee resident brought suit against the Secretary of State claiming that the failure to redraw the
legislative districts every ten years, as outlined in the state constitution, resulted in rural votes holding more
votes than urban votes.
 The state claimed redistricting was a political question and non-justiciable.
 Baker petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States.
 The Supreme Court held that an equal protection challenge to malapportionment of state legislatures is not a
political question because is fails to meet any of the six political question tests and is, therefore, justiciable.