About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

15 Vand. L. Rev. 829 (1961-1962)
Some Reflections on Baker v. Carr

handle is hein.journals/vanlr15 and id is 845 raw text is: Some Reflections on Baker v. Carr Nicholas deB. Katzenbach* This article is based on the author's address before the Vanderbilt University School of Law in connection with the school's 1962 Law Day ceremonies. In it, Mr. Katzenbach examines the positions of the various opinions in Baker v. Carr, the significance of the case both for Ten- nessee and the country as a whole, and the various alternatives open to the district courts for implementing the decision. Law Day-USA, in 1962, is an occasion for special celebration in Tennessee, particularly in Nashville, the home of this great university, and in the other important population centers of the state. Under, and because of, the rule of law, I believe we are about to witness the peaceful restoration of the equal voting rights of thousands of citizens of Tennessee, whose voices and representation in guiding the legislative affairs of the state have been reduced to a mere fraction of their rightful worth over the past sixty years. The case of Baker v. Carr,' decided just one month ago by the United States Supreme Court, concerns Tennessee directly. Indirectly, it may affect voting rights and legislative representation in every other state where entrenched minorities have succeeded in diluting the right of franchise of the majority. The historic decision is both a reward and a tribute, earned by the perseverance and dedication of a bipartisan band of citizens, comprising plaintiffs and counsel, among them Mayor Ben West of Nashville, Walter Chandler of Memphis, and Hobart F. Atkins of Knoxville. The unwavering faith of this group, that law would prevail over lawlessness, made its impression on the high court where others before them, from Tennessee and elsewhere, unluckily had not succeeded. What has Baker v. Carr decided? Actually it is but a first, and seemingly simple, step in the whole and ultimate process of reapportionment. The majority of the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brennan, held that the Tennessee plaintiffs had set forth a justiciable cause of action, within the reach of judicial protection under the fourteenth amendment, and that the federal district court, which had dismissed the complaint on a pretrial motion, should hear and decide the claim. Plaintiffs' claim is that the 1901 state statute, for apportioning membership in the Tennessee legis- lature among the several districts and counties, has effected a gross *Deputy Attorney General of the United States. 1. 369 U.S. 186 (1962).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most