baker v carr
Updated: 6/7/2020
baker v carr
This storyboard was created with

Storyboard Text

  • Baker v Carr (1961)
  • 1901
  • Wow, Tennessee sure is getting big! Look at our city compared to the rural town right next to us...
  • Yeah, too bad we only redistrict every 10 years.
  • 1961
  • City districts should be redrawn to reflect the change of population in urban areas.
  • Courts don't need to interfere with the democratic process.
  • This is a political issue, not for the court. Federal courts never had authority to review voting district. If courts decide this case, they will overstep their authority.
  • We are underrepresented due to the district lines being unfairly drawn. Tennessee refusal to reapportion goes against the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
  • Ruling
  • Became the development of "one person, one vote" doctrine by ruling that challenges to redistricting didn't raise political question that would interfere federal courts from reviewing such cases.
  • 6-2 in favor of Baker. The Tennessee legislature must reapportion itself according to population.
Over 14 Million Storyboards Created
Storyboard That Family