What was the reason for the us supreme court to rule against the state of tennessee in baker v. carr? a. tennessee had discriminated in favor of city voters over rural voters. b. tennessee had not redistricted since 1901, keeping rural districts in power. c. tennessee had refused to create districts that were the same shape. d. tennessee had refused to take part in the national census.

What was the reason for the US Supreme Court to rule against the state of Tennessee in Baker v. Carr?

Baker v. Carr was a case that came about to address the concerning inequality between voting districts. It established in 1962, something that we may take for granted now, which is "One vote, one person", by a process known as "Redistricting".

The reason the Supreme Court ruled against Tennessee during these case is that a group of Tennesseans was arguing against the way the Supreme Court was ruling this redistricting; they claimed it was not a decision concerning the federal government. Also, their constitution offered protection to the counties so that they could not be divided and parts of different counties could not be joined together to create a different legislative district. The Supreme court had to rule out against the state of Tennessee to be able to carry out the new legislation.

Tennessee had not redistricted since 1901, keeping rural districts in power.  

Further Explanation:  

Baker V. Carr was a landmark decision made by the Supreme court of the United States in which court held that redistricting qualifies as equal as justiciable question and that ruling enabled federal courts to hear redistricting cases. This case came into effect when a lawsuit was filed against the State of Tennessee as it did not conduct any redistricting from the last 61 years. The counter from Tennessee came as that the composition of the legislative districts did constitute a political question. Associate Justice, William J. Brennan along with other five other justices stated that redistricting never qualifies as a political question and he also remanded the case to the federal district court for future proceedings. Initially, the verdict of this case did not have any major impact on the electoral districts but the verdict itself set an important precedent with regards to the powers provided to the federal courts in order to address redistricting.  

Learn More:

1. Which step in the scientific method requires you to use your senses to obtain information?

2. How can the government ensure that the youth do not find themselves poverty-stricken in the future?

Answer Details:

Grade: High School

Chapter:Baker V. Carr

Subject: History

Keywords: Baker, Carr, Supreme Court, Legislative Districts, Lawsuit, Federal, District, Powers, Federal courts, Justice, William J. Brennan, Initially.  

it maybe, we dont know. however lucky the lipercon seams guilty