What principle did Baker v. Carr establish regarding apportionment?

What principle did Baker v. Carr establish regarding apportionment?

• A. The Court cannot hear apportionment cases.
• B. The Court can rule on political questions, including apportionment.
• C. Apportionment is exclusively a legislative matter.
• D. Courts defer to state legislatures on redistricting.

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is that apportionment disputes are justiciable and subject to court review. Baker v. Carr held that federal courts can decide cases alleging that state legislative district boundaries violate the Equal Protection Clause, so the judiciary can intervene in how districts are drawn. This established the principle of one person, one vote, forcing state legislatures to redraw districts so that each vote has roughly equal weight. It marked a shift away from treating redistricting as a purely political matter off-limits to the courts and affirmed that constitutional guarantees of equal protection enable judicial action in apportionment. That’s why the best answer is that the Court can rule on political questions, including apportionment: the decision discards the idea that redistricting is outside judicial reach and instead allows the judiciary to enforce equal protection in drawing legislative districts. The other options aren’t correct because Baker did not say the Court cannot hear apportionment cases, did not claim apportionment is exclusively legislative, and did not endorse blanket deference to state legislatures on redistricting.

The main idea here is that apportionment disputes are justiciable and subject to court review. Baker v. Carr held that federal courts can decide cases alleging that state legislative district boundaries violate the Equal Protection Clause, so the judiciary can intervene in how districts are drawn. This established the principle of one person, one vote, forcing state legislatures to redraw districts so that each vote has roughly equal weight. It marked a shift away from treating redistricting as a purely political matter off-limits to the courts and affirmed that constitutional guarantees of equal protection enable judicial action in apportionment.

That’s why the best answer is that the Court can rule on political questions, including apportionment: the decision discards the idea that redistricting is outside judicial reach and instead allows the judiciary to enforce equal protection in drawing legislative districts. The other options aren’t correct because Baker did not say the Court cannot hear apportionment cases, did not claim apportionment is exclusively legislative, and did not endorse blanket deference to state legislatures on redistricting.