who argued
mainly from
because
because
explaining that
ruled in favor of
due to
but
who
which therefore
that
thus
which permits
which
through
thus
which mainly serves to
specifically
which is
therefore setting
that is
which ensures
in order for states
which declared that
which
in
which mainly concerned
specifically
thus
who confronted
who argued that
was addressed by
but
meaning that
because
begins
has
relates to
The Supreme Court's
The
The cases'
which is further emphasized in
which contradicts the claims of
through clauses like
by valuing
which then
which led to
therefore embracing
who won
by
who dissented the
thus protecting
permitting
This therefore
and

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Background

In the Mid-20th Century it became apparent that

many residents migrated from rural areas to cities

a district with 200 residents would have the same representation as a district with 2000 residents

Federal courts chose not to hear any cases pertaining to redistricting as they did not want to interfere with a power directly stated within the constitution.

Constitutional Issue

Charles Baker

people in rural areas were overrepresented compared to urban areas

offsetting the Fourteenth amendment

The Equal Protections Clause

voting practices declared by states

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

preclearance is required by the federal government

to practice any form of redistricting

not partial to racial gerrymandering

a fine line between racial and partisan gerrymandering

a properly mandated system

Federalism

accommodates selective incorporation

the First amendment, regarding "one man, one vote"

providing equality of opportunity regarding a voice in government

The Free Speech Clause

guarantees civil liberties away from government

ridiculing any form of infringement

contradicts the importance of embracing the foundations of the Constitution

the general public to question justiciable matters,

depicts an ideal impact the Supreme Court has on the public

Essential Questions

form a bridge between the 14th amendment and the Bill of Rights

Joe Carr

was not directly responsible for such redistricting

was eventually sued ex officio as Secretary of Tennessee

having responsibility of conducting elections and distributing district maps

Decision

Baker in a 6-2 decision

there is no reason a court should not be able to determine the validity of currently drawn districts

the equal protection clause is judicially enforceable.

Gill v. Whitford

In this case, the court ruled that partisan gerrymandering was justified since the plaintiffs could prove individual harm, only statewide harm.

Dissenting opinions

Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter

that the Court ignored previous precedent and history regarding

Judicial Restraint

Separation of powers between the legislatures and the courts