The US Supreme Court ruled against the state of Tennessee in Baker vs. Carr because <u>Tennessee had not redistricted since 1901, keeping rural districts in power</u>. This implies the correct answer is B
Representation in the state legislature of Tennessee was determined by 1901 law. The 1901 law set the actual number of the legislature for all county. This law was later not in favor of urban areas because of the significant increase in population thereby resulted in underrepresentation.
<h2>Further Explanation</h2>
In order to resolve this issue, a mayor of Nashville, Baker brought a suit before the US Supreme Court, saying that the then-existing law on apportionment denied eligible voters of highly populated areas the equal protection of the law as rightly stated by the 14th amendments.
Although, the case was dismissed initially by a District Court saying it lacked jurisdiction and that baker’s claim was not legitimate.
The U.S district court described the case a merely “political questions” that cannot be appropriately resolved by a court.
Baker’s approached the Supreme Court and the ruling of the district was reversed.
The Supreme Court ruled against the state of Tennessee and this ruling compelled the state of Tennessee legislature to reapportion itself based on the numbers of people that reside in a district.
LEARN MORE:
KEYWORDS:
- supreme court
- rural voters
- ruling
- US
- power
- state of Tennessee
- baker
- carr
Answer:
There are always risks involved. -is true of good human relations.
