The US Supreme Court ruled against the state of Tennessee in Baker vs. Carr because Tennessee had not redistricted since 1901, keeping rural districts in power. This implies the correct answer is B
Representation in the state legislature of Tennessee was determined by 1901 law. The 1901 law set the actual number of the legislature for all county. This law was later not in favor of urban areas because of the significant increase in population thereby resulted in underrepresentation.
In order to resolve this issue, a mayor of Nashville, Baker brought a suit before the US Supreme Court, saying that the then-existing law on apportionment denied eligible voters of highly populated areas the equal protection of the law as rightly stated by the 14th amendments.
Although, the case was dismissed initially by a District Court saying it lacked jurisdiction and that baker’s claim was not legitimate.
The U.S district court described the case a merely “political questions” that cannot be appropriately resolved by a court.
Baker’s approached the Supreme Court and the ruling of the district was reversed.
The Supreme Court ruled against the state of Tennessee and this ruling compelled the state of Tennessee legislature to reapportion itself based on the numbers of people that reside in a district.
LEARN MORE:
KEYWORDS:
Baker versus Carr was a case in 1962. It was a landmark case in which the US Supreme Court decided that redistricting is a justiciable question and federal court has authority to intervene. Tennessee had not redistricted since 1901, keeping rural districts in power.
Further Explanation:
Baker versus Carr was a case in 1962. It was a landmark case in which the US Supreme Court decided that redistricting is a justiciable question and federal court has authority to intervene. The Supreme Court can hear redistricting cases. The defendants argued that restricting is a political question and federal courts have no right or authority to hear and resolve the cases.
The case arose against the state of Tennessee. It had not conducted the redistricting process since 1901. In the majority opinion held by five other justices gave the decision that the redistricting does not pass the test of a political question. The case didn’t impact electoral districts immediately. It sets an important power of the courts to address the question of redistricting.
There are six factors that defined any question as political. Issues like executive powers, foreign affairs on matters of political questions. The case forced the state legislature of Tennessee is to reapportion itself based on its population. Each vote would carry equal weight. The state violated the equal protection clause.
Learn more:
1. How did California differ from the united states in terms of interactions of whites and natives?
https://brainly.com/question/7248802
2. The president signing a trade agreement with China is an example Of
https://brainly.com/question/4011746
Answer Details:
Grade: High School
Subject: Political Science
Topic: United State Judiciary
Keywords: not conducted, redistricting, electoral districts, executive powers, equal protection clause
