Baker v. Carr

Brief Fact Summary.

Complainants challenged the constitutionality of an apportionment statute.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

There are six circumstances that may describe a political question: (1) a demonstrable constitutional commitment on the issue to a certain political department; (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue; (3) impossibility of deciding the issue without a policy determination that is clearly for nonjudicial discretion; (4) the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack for the respect due coordinate branches of government; (5) an unusual need for adherence to a political decision already made, or; (6) the potential of embarrassment from multifarious answers by various departments of government on one question. Unless one of these circumstances is present, an issue is not a political question.

Facts.

The complainants alleged that Tennessee’s 1901 Apportionment Act was unconstitutional, given Tennessee’s population growth and redistribution since 1901. They also requested the District Court to decree a reapportionment itself, or mandate legislative elections.

Issue.

Did this lawsuit—which sought a declaration that the 1901 Apportionment Act was unconstitutional, and a court-issued reapportionment method—present a non-justiciable political question?

Held.

No, the lawsuit did not present a non-justiciable political question.

Dissent.

Justice Frankfurter

Justice Frankfurter argued that the claim in this case implicated all of the characteristics that make Guarantee Clause cases non-justiciable.

Discussion.

According to the court, there are six circumstances that may describe a political question: a demonstrable constitutional commitment on the issue to a certain political department; a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue; impossibility of deciding the issue without a policy determination that is clearly for nonjudicial discretion; the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack for the respect due to other branches of government; an unusual need for adherence to a political decision already made; or the potential of embarrassment from multiple pronouncements by various governmental departments on one question. According to the court, unless one of these circumstances is present, an issue is not a political question.

The Court held that none of these circumstances were present here. The Court also distinguished the present case from Luther v. Borden, in which the Court held that claims based on the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause are non-justiciable political questions. The Guarantee Clause guarantees a republican form of government. According to the Court, the claim in Lucas implicated several of the aforementioned circumstances that indicate an issue is a political question, and the present case did not rely on the Guarantee Clause.