Note: At 163 pages, Baker v. Carr is one of the longest Supreme Court decisions you are likely to encounter. In spite of its length and complexity, the following brief contains only 793 words. An excellent brief will capture all the pertinent elements while minimizing length. The brief that follows has been adapted from Albert P. Melone, Researching Constitutional Law (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1990), pp. 112-14.

Facts:

In 1901 Tennessee enacted a statute apportioning the state legislature and providing for subsequent decennial reapportionment on the basis of qualified voters resident in each of the state's counties as determined by the population census. For 60 years Tennessee became increasingly urban, but no reapportionment took place. Finding themselves underrepresented in the state legislature, Baker and other urban citizens sued in U.S. District Court under federal civil rights statutes charging that they were being denied equal protection of the laws contrary to the 14th Amendment. The plaintiffs sought a court declaration that the 1901 law was unconstitutional and asked the court for the alternative remedies of election of state legislators at large or elections from districts based on the 1950 census. The district court agreed that the plaintiffs' rights had been abridged but dismissed the suit as lacking any judicial remedy.

Issues:

1. Does the district court have jurisdiction of the subject matter in this case?
2. Do the litigants have standing to sue?
3. Is the issue of malapportionment of state legislatures a nonjusticiable political question?

Decision and Action:

(1) Yes, (2) Yes, (3) No. Reversed and Remanded.

Opinion of the Court:

Brennan (joined by Warren Douglas, Black, Clark, Stewart):

1. There is a distinction between jurisdiction of the subject matter and justiciability of the subject matter. There is no jurisdiction if the cause of action (a) does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States or (b) is not a case or controversy within the meaning of Article III § 2. However, the matter of equal representation arises under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the U.S. District Court is authorized to hear such cases by statute (28 U.S.C. § 1314).
2. Voters alleging facts which disadvantage them as individuals have standing to sue. The 1901 statute injures the appellants because they are voters in the counties which are underrepresented in the Tennessee state legislature. Voters have judicially enforceable rights against arbitrary impairment of the full enjoyment of that privilege.
3. The fact that this suit seeks protection of a political right does not render the case a political question and therefore nonjusticiable. Claims based upon the Guaranty Clause have been dismissed by this court as political questions better left to legislative and executive branches. Appellants' claims are based not on the Guaranty Clause but on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The concept of nonjusticiable political questions applies to cases requiring judicial deference to the other branches of the federal government. Appellants' claim are against the state government where the doctrine of political questions does not apply.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions:

Douglas concurring: There is no question that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment the federal courts may restrain state agencies from violating citizens' rights. However, the test is whether the state has made "an invidious discrimination" as when it oppresses a race or nationality. The appellants should have an opportunity to prove that "invidious discrimination" exists in this case.

Clark concurring: It is not a good idea for the Supreme Court to intervene in such a delicate matter as legislative representation. However, the appellants in this case have no recourse but to appeal to the courts for remedy. The ordinary political channels are effectively closed to them.

Stewart concurring: The Court's opinion is limited to three points and nothing more:

1. the Court possessed subject matter jurisdiction;
2. the case represents a justiciable cause of action; and
3. the appellants have standing to challenge the Tennessee apportionment statutes.

Frankfurter (joined by Harlan) dissenting: The Court reverses a uniformly decided set of cases on this subject. The case involves political questions, and when the Court involves itself in such matters, it may suffer a loss of public confidence. Moreover, the Court does not provide any guidelines for the district court to enforce the claim. Finally, this case is not a simple one of blatant discrimination. Rather, Tennessee uses a form of geographical representation that is not preferred by the appellants.

Harlan (joined by Frankfurter) dissenting: The complaint should be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." There is no equal protection requirement that legislative institutions must provide an equal voice for each voter. If the Supreme Court is to remain a respected institution, it must exercise judicial restraint.

Whittaker did not participate in the decision.

Summary: Aggrieved citizens may challenge state legislative malapportionment in federal court.

Significance: The vicious cycle of malapportionment was broken as the legislators who benefited from malapportionment were no longer the only people with the power to change it. In a relatively short period of time the rural domination of state legislatures came to an end as cities and suburbs achieved representation based on their populations.