Baker v. Carr

(1962) U.S. Supreme Court case that forced the Tennessee legislature to reapportion itself on the basis of population.

The case ended the traditional overrepresentation of rural areas in the legislature and established that the court may intervene in apportionment cases. The court ruled that every citizen's vote should carry equal weight, regardless of the voter's place of residence. Its ruling in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) built on Baker by requiring virtually every state legislature to be reapportioned, ultimately causing political power in most states to shift from rural to urban areas.

* * *

▪ law case

      (1962), U.S. Supreme Court case that forced the Tennessee legislature to reapportion itself on the basis of population. Traditionally, particularly in the South, the populations of rural areas had been overrepresented in legislatures in proportion to those of urban and suburban areas. Prior to the Baker case, the Supreme Court had refused to intervene in apportionment cases; in 1946 in Colegrove v. Green the court said apportionment was a “political thicket” into which the judiciary should not intrude. In the Baker case, however, the court held that each vote should carry equal weight regardless of the voter's place of residence. Thus the legislature of Tennessee had violated the constitutionally guaranteed right of equal protection (q.v.). Chief Justice Earl Warren described this decision as the most important case decided after his appointment to the court in 1953.

      Citing the Baker case as a precedent, the court held in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) that both houses of bicameral legislatures had to be apportioned according to population. It remanded numerous other apportionment cases to lower courts for reconsideration in light of the Baker and Reynolds decisions. As a result, virtually every state legislature was reapportioned, ultimately causing the political power in most state legislatures to shift from rural to urban areas.

* * *