Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 101 views

    Art. 8 - Political Question - Baker V Carr

    Uploaded by

    Shinji Nishikawa
    The Supreme Court ruled that challenges to unequal representation in state legislatures based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment are justiciable and do not present non-justiciable political questions. The Court found that apportionment disputes do not meet any of the six tests for political questions, such as a textual commitment to another branch or a lack of judicial standards, and that individuals can bring suit against states over such representation issues without causing separation of powers problems.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Art. 8 - Political Question - Baker V Carr

    Uploaded by

    Shinji Nishikawa
    101 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that challenges to unequal representation in state legislatures based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment are justiciable and do not present non-justiciable political questions. The Court found that apportionment disputes do not meet any of the six tests for political questions, such as a textual commitment to another branch or a lack of judicial standards, and that individuals can bring suit against states over such representation issues without causing separation of powers problems.

    Original Description:

    a

    Original Title

    Art. 8 - Political Question - Baker v Carr

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that challenges to unequal representation in state legislatures based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment are justiciable and do not present non-justiciable political questions. The Court found that apportionment disputes do not meet any of the six tests for political questions, such as a textual commitment to another branch or a lack of judicial standards, and that individuals can bring suit against states over such representation issues without causing separation of powers problems.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    101 views1 page

    Art. 8 - Political Question - Baker V Carr

    Uploaded by

    Shinji Nishikawa
    The Supreme Court ruled that challenges to unequal representation in state legislatures based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment are justiciable and do not present non-justiciable political questions. The Court found that apportionment disputes do not meet any of the six tests for political questions, such as a textual commitment to another branch or a lack of judicial standards, and that individuals can bring suit against states over such representation issues without causing separation of powers problems.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BAKER v CARR

    369 U.S. 186 (1962)

    DOCTRINE: 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.

    FACTS:
    Appellants are persons allegedly qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly of
    Tennessee representing the counties in which they reside. They brought suit in a Federal District
    Court in Tennessee under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, on behalf of themselves and others
    similarly situated, to redress the alleged deprivation of their federal constitutional rights by
    legislation classifying voters with respect to representation in the General Assembly. They alleged
    that, by means of a 1901 statute of Tennessee arbitrarily and capriciously apportioning the seats
    in the General Assembly among the State's 95 counties, and a failure to reapportion them
    subsequently notwithstanding substantial growth and redistribution of the State's population,
    they suffer a "debasement of their votes," and were thereby denied the equal protection of the
    laws guaranteed them by the Fourteenth Amendment. They sought, inter alia, a declaratory
    judgment that the 1901 statute is unconstitutional and an injunction restraining certain state
    officers from conducting any further elections under it. The District Court dismissed the
    complaint on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter and that no claim was
    stated upon which relief could be granted.

    ISSUE: Whether or not an equal protection challenge to a malapportionment of state legislatures


    considered non-justiciable as a political question

    RULING: NO

    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 results.

    You might also like