Baker v. Carr
Significance, Charles Whittaker, Further Readings
Charles W. Baker, et al.
Joe E. Carr, et al.
That electoral districts which were drawn in such a way as to provide inadequate representation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyers for Appellants
Charles S. Rhyme, Z. T. Osborn, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Appellees
Jack Wilson, Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Potter Stewart, Earl Warren
Felix Frankfurter, John Marshall Harlan II (Charles Evans Whittaker did not participate)
Date of Decision
26 March 1962
Finding that constitutional challenges to malapportionment could be addressed by federal courts, the Supreme Court upheld the appellants' claim by a 6-2 vote.
- Colgrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 459 (1946).
- Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1962).
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964).
- Barenblatt v. United States - Significance, Government Interest In Self-preservation Found To Outweigh First Amendment Concerns, The Hollywood Ten
- "Heed their Rising Voices" - Heed Their Rising Voices
- Baker v. Carr - Further Readings
- Baker v. Carr - Significance
- Baker v. Carr - Charles Whittaker
- Other Free Encyclopedias