9. Formulating the judgment of “one person, one vote” in relation to the compositions of legislative districts, the Supreme Court reached perhaps its’ hardest verdict in the institution’s history in Baker v. Carr
Under the Tennessee State Constitution, legislative districts for the state’s General Assembly were required to be redrawn every ten years in line with the federal census to provide for constituencies of approximately equal population akin to federal congressional districts. Failing to redistrict since 1901, Charles Baker, a Republican from Shelby County, sought redress on the grounds the woefully imbalanced populations – with some districts possessing ten times the residents – undermined his “equal protection under the law” as required by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Reaching the Supreme Court in 1962, the state of Tennessee asserted the composition of districts was a political, not judicial question, as had been the view of the court in the opinion of Colegrove v. Green written by Justice Frankfurter in 1946. Becoming one of the most difficult cases in the history of the Supreme Court, the case had to be argued for a second time after the justices failed to reach agreement in conference. Finally splitting 6-2 in favor of Baker, with Frankfurter issuing a stinging dissenting opinion, the court ruled redistricting to be a justiciable question. Formulating the now-famous “one person, one vote” standard for future constituency drawings, the judgment forced numerous states, notably Alabama, to engage in widespread alterations to ensure fairness.