Question

What is an analogy to federal

Answer 1

THE FEDERAL ANALOGY AND STATE APPORTIONMENT STANDARDS Robert B. McKay* Baker v. Carr' appears at first impression to be a prime example in the American judicial tradition of deciding no more than is absolutely essential for disposition of the immediate case. It purported to decide only questions of jurisdiction, justiciability, and standing to sue2 where a claim was made that state legislative apportionment in Tennessee arbitrarily impaired voting rights. But only the wilfully blind could fail to see an invitation, if not a command, to a reordering of state legislative apportionment laws and practices. Indeed, Mr. Justice Brennan, in a footnote to his opinion for the Court, almost gave the whole show away when he referred to "our holding that the complaint states a federal constitutional claim of violation of the Equal Protection Clause."' Justice Douglas, in his separate concurring opinion, stated flatly that "if the allegations in the complaint can be sustained a case for relief is established." 4 And Mr. Justice Clark was ready to decide the case on the merits. Because he found "that Tennessee's apportionment is a crazy quilt without rational basis, 5 he concluded that "the Tennessee apportionment statute offends the Equal Protection Clause. . ".."6 Although the majority more conservatively remanded the case to the three-judge district court where it had originated, the reaction in that court demonstrated that the Supreme Court opinions were read to foreclose continuance of the existing apportionment. By the time the case came back to the district court for reconsideration in light of Baker, the defendants had conceded the invalidity of the existing laws and the Tennessee legislature had enacted a new apportionment formula, which the three-judge court also * B.S., LL.B.; Professor of Law, New York University; Member, District of Columbia, Kansas, and United States Supreme Court Bars. 1 369 U.S. 186 (1962). 2 So Mr. justice Brennan said for the Court. Id. at 197-98. Mr. justice Stewart stated that the Court decided these "three things and no more." Id. at 265 (concurring opinion). 3 Id. at 195 n.15. Perhaps he used the word "claim" in the sense of "allegation,