Brief Fact Summary. Appellants brought suit, challenging malapportionment of state legislatures under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An apportionment case may be reviewed on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, so long as these grounds are independent from political question elements.
Issue. Is it possible to bring a malapportionment claim without raising a nonjusticiable political issue?
Held. Yes. Reversed and remanded.
In the past, apportionment challengers have generally based their challenge on the Guaranty Clause of Art. IV, Section: 4 of the Constitution. These claims are nonjusticiable as they address issues solely directed to the political branches of the government by the Constitution. This is a separation of powers issue.
In Baker v. Carr, the claim is that the Appellants are being denied equal protection of the laws by being underrepresented in the state legislature. The Supreme Court rules that the equal protection challenge in this case is separable from the political questions.
Dissent. In a vigorous dissent, Justice Felix Frankfurter (J. Frankfurter) argues the political question is inseparable from the equal protection claim and that the Supreme Court has effectively overturned a century of apportionment jurisprudence. In particular, the dissent argues that the Supreme Court has opened up all state districting to judicial oversight.
Discussion. Baker v. Carr is the first of the cases developing the Supreme Court’s “one person, one vote” legislation. This line of cases helped equalize representation between country and city dwellers in an increasingly urbanized nation.