Explanation: The legal challenge in Baker v. Carr was based on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, arguing that malapportioned districts violated citizens' rights.

Explanation: Charles Baker resided in Shelby County, a populous urban area, and his lawsuit challenged the state's legislative apportionment, which disproportionately favored rural districts due to population shifts.

Explanation: The Tennessee State Constitution required legislative districts to be redrawn every ten years to ensure population equality.

Explanation: Tennessee's legislative districts had not been redrawn since 1901, meaning they were based on the 1900 census, leading to severe malapportionment by the time of the Baker v. Carr lawsuit.

Explanation: Joe Carr, the Tennessee Secretary of State, was the named defendant in the lawsuit, responsible for election conduct and map publication, though he did not personally draw the districts.

Explanation: The case was reargued after Justice Whittaker recused himself due to health reasons and retired, and also because the Court sought a clearer consensus on the complex issues presented.

Explanation: The Court's decision in Baker v. Carr allowed for districts to cross county lines if necessary to achieve population equality, overriding state constitutional provisions that hindered such apportionment.

Explanation: The central issue in Baker v. Carr was whether the redistricting of state legislative districts constituted a justiciable question, meaning it could be reviewed and decided by federal courts, or if it was a nonjusticiable political question.

Explanation: Baker's district in Shelby County was significantly more populous, containing about ten times as many residents as some of the rural districts, illustrating the severe malapportionment where urban areas were underrepresented relative to their population.

Explanation: Tennessee's legislative districts had not been redrawn since 1901, meaning they were based on the 1900 census, leading to severe malapportionment by the time of the Baker v. Carr lawsuit.

Explanation: The lawsuit indirectly challenged the state's failure to adhere to the Tennessee Constitution's requirement for periodic redistricting based on population, which had led to severe malapportionment.

Explanation: The specific citation for the landmark Supreme Court case Baker v. Carr is 369 U.S. 186.

Explanation: Tennessee's failure to redraw legislative districts for decades resulted in severe malapportionment, where districts varied drastically in population, leading to unequal representation.

Explanation: The Supreme Court determined that redistricting disputes are justiciable, meaning they can be reviewed by federal courts, thereby overturning the prior 'political question' doctrine in this context.

Explanation: Tennessee contended that the composition of legislative districts was a political question, not subject to judicial review, a position previously supported by cases like Colegrove v. Green.

Explanation: The Supreme Court's decision on justiciability in Baker v. Carr was made by a vote of 6 to 2.

Explanation: Baker v. Carr determined that redistricting disputes are justiciable and can be reviewed by federal courts, effectively ending the era where such issues were automatically dismissed as political questions.

Explanation: Justiciable means that a case is suitable for judicial resolution, possessing the necessary characteristics for a court to hear and decide upon it, as opposed to being a political or hypothetical matter.

Explanation: Prior to Baker v. Carr, the political question doctrine, as seen in Colegrove v. Green, was often used to dismiss redistricting cases, limiting judicial intervention in these matters.

Explanation: Tennessee argued that the composition of legislative districts was a political question, not a justiciable matter for federal courts, relying on prior precedents that discouraged judicial intervention in such disputes.

Explanation: Justice Brennan identified six factors for determining if an issue is a political question, none of which specifically cited 'national security' as a standalone criterion; the factors focused on textual commitment, manageable standards, policy determination, inter-branch respect, and prior political decisions.

Explanation: The Court's ruling in Baker v. Carr redefined and narrowed the application of the political question doctrine, clarifying that issues of legislative apportionment, when framed as equal protection claims, were indeed subject to judicial review.

Explanation: The Supreme Court's decision on justiciability in Baker v. Carr was made by a vote of 6 to 2.

Explanation: Baker v. Carr established that redistricting disputes are legally cognizable and can be resolved by federal courts, overturning the previous notion that they were solely political questions.

Explanation: The challenge was grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, asserting that population disparities between districts denied equal protection.

Explanation: The plaintiffs argued that the significant population disparities between legislative districts violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Explanation: The core legal basis for the plaintiffs' argument was the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, not the First Amendment's due process guarantee.

Explanation: The legal challenge in Baker v. Carr was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Explanation: The Equal Protection Clause served as the core legal basis for the plaintiffs' argument, asserting that population disparities in legislative districts denied them equal protection under the law.

Explanation: Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr.

Explanation: Justice Felix Frankfurter dissented, arguing that the Court's intervention in redistricting matters represented a departure from judicial restraint and an encroachment on the political branches.

Explanation: Justice Frankfurter used the term 'political thicket' to argue that legislative apportionment was a complex political issue best left to the political branches, and that judicial intervention would be inappropriate.

Explanation: Justice Tom C. Clark switched his vote to concur on the substance of the claims, contributing to the majority that found the case justiciable, but the 'one person, one vote' principle was more fully developed in subsequent cases.

Explanation: Justice William J. Brennan Jr. authored the majority opinion for the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr.

Explanation: Justice Felix Frankfurter strongly dissented in Baker v. Carr, warning that the Court's decision would lead federal courts into the complex and politically charged area of legislative apportionment.

Explanation: Justice Frankfurter used the term 'political thicket' to argue that legislative apportionment was a complex political issue best left to the political branches, and that judicial intervention would be inappropriate.

Explanation: Justice Tom C. Clark switched his vote to concur on the substance of the claims, contributing to the majority that found the case justiciable, although the majority opinion ultimately remanded the case to the District Court.

Explanation: Baker v. Carr drew upon the precedent set by Gomillion v. Lightfoot, which had established that districting claims involving racial discrimination were justiciable under the Fifteenth Amendment.

Explanation: In Gray v. Sanders, the Court referenced Baker v. Carr, stating that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause limits state legislative districts based on population.

Explanation: Baker v. Carr partially overturned the precedent set by Colegrove v. Green, which had previously held that redistricting issues were nonjusticiable political questions.

Explanation: Baker v. Carr built upon the precedent set by Gomillion v. Lightfoot, where the Supreme Court had previously held that districting claims involving racial discrimination could be brought under the Fifteenth Amendment, indicating that such issues were justiciable.

Explanation: Colegrove v. Green (1946) was a prior Supreme Court case where a plurality opinion declared redistricting issues to be political questions, stating that courts should not enter this 'political thicket.' Tennessee relied on this precedent in Baker v. Carr.

Explanation: While Baker v. Carr made redistricting justiciable, the 'one person, one vote' standard was more explicitly articulated and applied in subsequent cases like Reynolds v. Sims and Wesberry v. Sanders.

Explanation: Reynolds v. Sims extended the 'one person, one vote' principle to both houses of bicameral state legislatures, requiring equal population districts for each.

Explanation: Wesberry v. Sanders established the 'one person, one vote' principle for congressional districts, and Reynolds v. Sims applied it to state legislative districts.

Explanation: The Supreme Court cases Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims, decided in 1964, were significantly influenced by Baker v. Carr, as they required electoral districts to have equal populations based on the 'one person, one vote' principle.

Explanation: Reynolds v. Sims mandated that for states with bicameral legislatures, both houses must be apportioned based on the 'one person, one vote' standard, meaning districts within each house must have equal populations.

Explanation: While Baker v. Carr made redistricting justiciable, the 'one person, one vote' standard was more explicitly articulated and applied in subsequent cases like Reynolds v. Sims and Wesberry v. Sanders, which built upon the foundation laid by Baker v. Carr.

Explanation: The decision established the principle that federal courts could hear redistricting cases, but it did not mandate immediate redrawing; it remanded the case for further proceedings.

Explanation: Chief Justice Earl Warren regarded the cases stemming from Baker v. Carr as among the most significant of his time on the Supreme Court.

Explanation: By deeming redistricting disputes justiciable, Baker v. Carr significantly expanded the scope of federal judicial power to review state political processes and ensure constitutional compliance.

Explanation: The Baker v. Carr decision did not immediately change any electoral districts; instead, it established the principle that federal courts could hear redistricting cases, paving the way for future challenges and eventual reapportionment.

Explanation: On remand, the federal district court addressed the redistricting issues, leading to further legal proceedings and eventual reapportionment in Tennessee, as the Supreme Court had only established justiciability.

Explanation: The decision fundamentally reshaped representation by ensuring that legislative districts more accurately reflected the distribution of the population, thereby strengthening the democratic principle of equal representation for all citizens.

Explanation: The text mentions 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a relevant statute, which allows individuals to sue state actors for violations of their constitutional rights, providing a mechanism for bringing such redistricting claims.

Explanation: Baker v. Carr significantly expanded the power of federal courts by affirming their jurisdiction over redistricting disputes, which had previously been considered outside their purview as political questions.

Explanation: The principle of 'one person, one vote,' solidified by cases following Baker v. Carr, led to reapportionment that increased the political power of urban areas, which had often been underrepresented, while reducing the relative power of more rural areas that had been overrepresented.

Explanation: Chief Justice Earl Warren considered the Baker v. Carr line of cases to be the most important of his tenure as Chief Justice, recognizing their profound impact on political representation.

Explanation: The decision signaled a greater willingness of federal courts to intervene in state political processes to uphold constitutional rights, particularly concerning representation and equal protection.