When discussing the history of judicial ruling the landmark case of Baker v. Carr is consistently foregrounded. The case is famous for effectively overturning the earlier case of Colegrove v. Green, which had stated in 1946 that federal courts lacked the jurisdiction to rule on matters regarding malapportionment—an illegal act where the population of voting districts are distributed in an unfair manner.
Baker v. Carr (1962) changed the face of the legal landscape for good. The ruling of the Supreme Court declared that the issue of malapportionment was justiciable—they could legally rule on the matter due to it being a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. This monumental decision firmly established the role of the courts in protecting the rights of citizens beyond matters solely of federal law, and gave courts recourse in cases of governmental misconduct or malpractice.
Making Malapportionment a Thing of the Past
Before the case of Baker v. Carr malapportionment was a regular occurrence and widespread across the country. The ruling changed this, effectively making it illegal for lawmakers to attempt this form of political gaming in their districts and states.
The issue of malapportionment is still relevant today in policy debates. For instance, when discussing whether districts should be gerrymandered to unfair advantage to one party, or when discussing the disenfranchisement of immigrant communities by voter suppression laws.
As the nation now faces issues that echo the ones assaulted in the landmark case of Baker v. Carr, citizens of the United States can rest assured that the federal court system is prepared to protect the rights of their citizens should they be violated in any instance.