Baker v. Carr (1962)
This case occurred in the most timely and fortunate era of the progressive movement, which lasted from the late 1890s until World War I. The main goal of the Progressive movement was to ameliorate the worst aspects of rapid industrialization of the United States - the defiling of the environment, the exploitation of citizens, the abuse of workers, and the corruption of the political system. Starting in state legislatures, progressive reformers passed a variety of statutes, including worker's compensation, minimum wages, factory safety laws and maximum hour limits.
However, conservatives were able to block some of these programs in the courts because many members of the judiciary viewed businesses as private property, which the legislatures should not be able to tell people how to use. Courts also sustained the notion of "liberty to contract," which held that employers and employees should be able to negotiate themselves without any state interference.
In 1962, Charles Baker, a qualified voter, sued Joe Carr, the state official in charge of elections. Baker contended that the state's failure to poll population changes and reapportion legislatures diluted his vote and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a relief. However the court did acknowledge that the legislature had violated the plaintiff's rights, and that an immediate remedy was justified. It reasoned, however, that it could not provide such relief. Baker then appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that a case raising a political issue would be heard. This ruling allowed federal courts to hear challenges to boundaries of voting districts and to require them to have more nearly equal populations. The decision broke the rural lock on political power and gave urban voters more nearly equivalent representation. This landmark decision also opened the way for numerous suits on legislative apportionment.
The Full Supreme Court Opinion