Essay Example on Case Syllabus Appellants Charles Baker Republican

Case Syllabus Appellants Charles Baker Republican resident from Tennessee Mayor of Millington Tennessee v Joe Carr Secretary of State for Tennessee Argued April 18 19 1961 Reargued Oct 9 1961 Decided March 26 1962 Facts This case was presented in a Federal District court in Tennessee on behalf of Mayor Charles Baker and citizens of Tennessee filing a complaint stating that their Fourteenth Amendment rights were being violated Charles Baker and other residents from Tennessee state that Tennessee had not been redistricted since 1901 The Tennessee Constitution required revising districts to redraw seats for the state s General Assembly every ten years to redress any changes in population and had been ignored since then Baker argued that votes of other rural citizens were overrepresented compared to demographically shift that had occurred in his district within the years Baker complained that due to failure to reapportioning the seats in the General Assembly apart from the disparity of population of his district and substantial growth they lacked debasement of their votes and caused him to lack equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment Charles Baker filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Joe Carr due to carrying out elections and district maps State sets district lines Tennessee dismissed case because they alleged that courts could not resolved this matter due to being a political issue Court Holding Question Held 2 

Appellants had sufficient proof to support their allegations Pp 369 U S 204 208 3 Baker s allegation of a rejection of equal protection was a justifiable constitutional matter therefore was entitled to a trail and decision Pp 369 U S 208 37 179 F Supp 824 case was reversed and remanded Opinions The decision of this case was six to two and was finalized March 1962 by a plurality of votes because no majority came forward from either side Justice Charles Evans Witttakers even withdrew from case for the sake of his health conditions There were two concurrences by Justices William Douglas and Potter Stewart Justice William Brennan did agree that this was a justiciable issue rather than a political but since there was no majority Court remanded the case to the lower courts Justice Felix Frankfurter however stated the Court did go further beyond their judicial roles and should have permitted the political process handle the situation Frankfurter states that legal intervention was pointless in an essentially political conflict Practice had been cast aside and Court had violated the separation of powers between the Courts and legislative He addresses how the Court should detach from any political entanglement No judicial remedy had been established under the Constitution and not every political mischief should have a remedy through the Court Justice Harlan who joined dissenting with Justice FrankFurter argued that nowhere in the Equal Protection Clause or in the Federal Constitution particularly supported that state legislature must be so structured and fairly accurate in regards to the equality voice of every voter He expressed that Baker should had seek alleviation from the legislative and how other cases similar had been rejected While Justice Harlem and Justice Frankfurter oppose to this suit Justice William Brennan stated that Courts did have the power to consider and decide the case after properly addressing the case to determine what amounts to a political question 

The majority opinion did came to a conclusion that even with constraints judiciary can rule over apportionment decisions however the court couldn t decide to any liberation granted to Baker therefore the Court sent case back to lower courts to rehear the case Constitutional Doctrine and Theory Apportionment cases had been based under the Guaranty Clause of Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution which states that that each state is guaranteed a republican form of government and that such matter that presents a political question shall not be addressed by the courts In this case the Guaranty Clause was rejected due to the fact that the Appellants argued the apportionment of legislatures under the Equal protection Clause As an outcome of this case the Supreme Court established the power that the Supreme court can review any legislative and redistricting matters The decision in this case and the court's explanation of the political question doctrine has strongly affected constitutional law and voting rights over the past decades Although this case was to some extent a political issue where appellant requested political rights did not mean however it a political issue This case argued that any apportionment case should involve no federal courts The political question doctrine came into consideration stating if the judicial systems is the appropriate system to here such case This doctrine deals with any measures and powers that have been committed to another branch of government As many cases similar to Baker v Carr this case gave power to the court to protect voting rights