Podcast appearances and mentions of Baker V Carr

We continue reading Baker v. Carr (1962) beginning with Part IV: Justiciability.    Access this Supreme Court opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.  Music by Epidemic Sound

Last week, in episodes 74 and 75, I read the majority and dissenting opinions in the case Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). The majority held that political gerrymandering of congressional districts, as opposed to racial gerrymandering which is prohibited by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, is a political question and thereby "nonjusticiable," or beyond the Court's power to resolve. But, the dissent argued that the Court had already held apportionment cases were indeed reviewable by federal courts in Baker v. Carr and twice upheld in Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims - both decided in 1964. Collectively, these three cases are known as the "One person, One Vote" cases because they were concerned with ensuring substantial equality of voting districts when compared to the actual population. In other words, if a quarter of a state identifies with party A and there are four districts, party A should have one district, not three or four.  The Court in Rucho ignored the precedents established fifty years earlier in the Marshall Court's "one person, one vote" cases - in favor of reviving the even older precedents of non-justiciability under the Frankfurter Court.  Chief Justice Marshall thought today's case so important that, when he was later asked which case he was most proud of during his tenure on the Court, he did not say Brown v. Board of Education - he said this one, Baker v. Carr was. Because no kind of equality will last for long if it doesn't extend to the ballot box.  I'm still reading and recording this case right now, but I'm so excited for you all to hear it that I thought I would tell you about it now, before election day is over, so you'll be sure to come back and listen by the time I get it published.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez. Music by Epidemic Sound

Last week, in episodes 74 and 75, I read the majority and dissenting opinions in the case Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). The majority held that political gerrymandering of congressional districts, as opposed to racial gerrymandering which is prohibited by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, is a political question and thereby "nonjusticiable," or beyond the Court's power to resolve. But, the dissent argued that the Court had already held apportionment cases were indeed reviewable by federal courts in Baker v. Carr and twice upheld in Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims - both decided in 1964. Collectively, these three cases are known as the "One person, One Vote" cases because they were concerned with ensuring substantial equality of voting districts when compared to the actual population. In other words, if a quarter of a state identifies with party A and there are four districts, party A should have one district, not three or four.  The Court in Rucho ignored the precedents established fifty years earlier in the Marshall Court's "one person, one vote" cases - in favor of reviving the even older precedents of non-justiciability under the Frankfurter Court.  Chief Justice Marshall thought today's case so important that, when he was later asked which case he was most proud of during his tenure on the Court, he did not say Brown v. Board of Education - he said this one, Baker v. Carr was. Because no kind of equality will last for long if it doesn't extend to the ballot box.  I'm still reading and recording this case right now, but I'm so excited for you all to hear it that I thought I would tell you about it now, before election day is over, so you'll be sure to come back and listen by the time I get it published.   Music by Epidemic Sound

In this episode, I examine the case that established the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over redistricting disputes: Baker v. Carr. In the coming weeks, keep an eye out for Shaw v. Reno, 1993, a case that expanded upon the Baker precedent! Enjoy, everyone, and stay healthy!  Note: in an effort to keep episodes shorter and beat the AP exam season - both of which impact my classmates - I am putting a halt to inviting guests until I finish uploading all 15 required SCOTUS cases for the AP Government course. After that, though, I will continue having guests talk about past Supreme Court cases not included in the AP Government curriculum and current Court cases, such as Carson v. Makin, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and more - and all in the heat of the waiting of the Court's opinions!

On this episode, we revisit Baker v. Carr, the landmark 1962 case that led to a "reapportionment revolution" while ensuring minorities had equal representation in state legislatures across the country. Later, we chat with Shanna Hughey, president of ThinkTennessee, a Nashville-based nonpartisan think tank about gerrymandering. And as usual, we discuss the latest news of the week, including Rep. Gloria Johnson's plans to file a resolution during the upcoming special session that seeks to expel Rep. David Byrd from the legislature. 

On this episode, we revisit Baker v. Carr, the landmark 1962 case that led to a "reapportionment revolution" while ensuring minorities had equal representation in state legislatures across the country. Later, we chat with Shanna Hughey, president of ThinkTennessee, a Nashville-based nonpartisan think tank about gerrymandering. And as usual, we discuss the latest news of the week, including Rep. Gloria Johnson's plans to file a resolution during the upcoming special session that seeks to expel Rep. David Byrd from the legislature. 

Quote:  “The devil is always in the details, right?” —Mark Baird   About: If the State of Jefferson ever formed, it’s unlikely Anthony Bourdain would ever travel there for its pizza or burritos. Mark Baird, the “unofficial” leader of the State of Jefferson movement, likes to think they’d be known for their buffalo burgers. Though, he’ll admit, he’s in the minority. Most people behind this movement, he says, would probably prefer beef. Being in the minority is a feeling he’s had for quite some time. Living in Northern California with Baird’s heavy libertarian point-of-view would likely drive most people crazy, and out of the state. But Baird wants to stay. He’d just prefer he was living in a new state, a State of Jefferson. Feeling that he’s had no representation in how Sacramento operates, this semi-retired pilot and former buffalo rancher has spent the past several years convincing thousands of citizens along with cities, counties and mayors to join his grass-roots movement. In Part II of II of this story, we ask how Baird plans to form this new state and look into the financials, legality and likelihood of whether the State of Jefferson can ever live up to being more than just a state of mind. Show Notes: [00:25] Mark Baird’s speech on 05.31.17 in front of California State Capitol building in Sacramento [00:55] “Borough” by Blue Dot Sessions [02:25] See Citizens for Fair Representation et al. v. Padilla Recommended: A recent 60 Minutes profile of Gov. Brown (CBS News) [02:30] The photo of California Gov. Jerry Brown looking at a flag of the State of Jefferson [04:15] “This Land Is Your Land” performed by Sharon Jones & the Dap Kings [04:50] Recommended: Listen to Part I before listening to this episode [09:35] Light reading on Kevin Hendrick (The Union) Earlier profile of the movement (The Sacramento Bee) [11:45] One of the first counties the State of Jefferson movement made its case back in 2013 (Siskyou Daily News) Results of Ballot Measure A in 2014 on the matter of state-split question And an economic overview [12:00] Light reading on Tehama County [12:25] Results of Del Norte County’s state-split ballot measure (Associated Press) [13:05] “Jefferson State of Mind” performed by local musician CQ [13:20] Official map of the State of Jefferson and its declared counties Results of Measure G on state-split question The county’s Board of Supervisors placing issue on the ballot (The Sacramento Bee) A short news brief on the results of the vote (USA Today) And an economic overview [13:40] Light reading on Lassen County [13:45] Map of the State of Jefferson according to Keep It California [16:30] “Borough-Alternate Opening” by Blue Dot Sessions [16:55] Richard Seel’s presentation on the State of Jefferson’s financial model called “Show Me the Money” An earlier presentation of his model The latest spreadsheet detailing the financial model [17:00] Light reading on Steve Baird And on budgets and spending (NASBO) And on state budgets and the federal government (NASBO) And a break down of how state budgets are formed (California Budget Project) [17:45] A short primer on state taxes and revenue (National Association of State Budget Officers) [19:05] List of U.S. States by budget size [19:10] A bigger breakdown of state budgets including Nebraska Holistic overview of California’s total debt (California Policy Center) Related: An old report from 60 Minutes on the state budget crisis Unrelated: A primer on the federal debt and deficit [20:30] The $340 billion number comes from a 2014 report (Los Angeles Times) [20:55] “Borough Celeste-Solo” by Blue Dot Sessions [21:35] Light reading on zero-percent interest rates (Investopedia) And additional reading on the California wildfires (BBC News) [22:05] Light reading on Montana’s wildfires and its budget short fall (Rapid City Journal) Related: New Mexico’s list of state departments [22:30] California’s list of 343 state agencies [24:50] Light reading of an old profile on Peter Thiel (The New Yorker) [25:00] “Sunset on the Ganja Farm” by The State of Jefferson Band [25:10] More on the Colorado pot boom (The Denver Post) [26:15] More on Dan Walters (@DanCALmatters) here [27:00] An overview of California’s economic output by region (The Sacramento Bee) And an economic forecast (Calif. Department of Transportation) [28:30] Current breakdown of Siskyou County, where Baird lives [30:05] Light reading on U.S. history and the partitioning of states Additional reading on how to become a state (How Stuff Works) [30:25] Light reading on how admission into the Union And Puerto Rico (Newsweek) President Donald Trump comments on San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto (Fox News) [32:10] More on the Washington D.C.’s bid for 51 (NPR) A much deeper and thorough dive on how Tennessee became a state [32:40] Light reading on the Tennessee Plan (The Orlando Sentinel) [32:55] “Tennessee” by Jimmy Martin [34:05] Light reading on the City (Town) of Fort Jones [35:15] The original lawsuit filed against California Secretary of State Alex Padilla [36:20] “Lamb Drop-Minor Feel” by Blue Dot Sessions [38:05] “Coronea” by Blue Dot Sessions [38:20] Note: The Citizens for Fair Representation is technically a DBA for the State of Jefferson Formation, which is based in Nevada, as noted here. And confirmed here. (Yreka News) California’s State Constitution of 1879 (see: Article V) [38:50] California’s population growth over the years [39:15] Representation ratio based on California population in 1879 Additional reading here Recent column on the measure in the New York Times [39:40] Light reading on the Apportionment Act of 1929 [40:10] More on the Hamilton-Vinton Model Power In Numbers: Reapportionment and the Constitution (Constitution Center) Congressional Apportionment: Past, Present and Future (Duke University) The House of Representatives Apportionment Formula: An Analysis of Proposals for Change and Their Impact on States (Congressional Research Service) The 1911 House Reapportionment (House.gov) Op-ed for enlarging the number of representatives (The New York Times) Methods of Apportionment (US Census) [39:40] Related reading on Congressional Apportionment: [41:40] Herbert Hoover’s full speech in St. Louis, MO in 1932 (CSPAN) [42:50] Assemblymember Paul Fong on Local Edition [42:55] See Article XIX here [43:15] Light reading on the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 [43:30] More on California’s apology to the Chinese here (TIME) [46:10] “Velejo-Atmo” by Blue Dot Sessions [47:50] “Lord Weasel-Thoughtful Bridge” by Blue Dot Sessions [48:00] Full text of the Declaration of Independence (National Archives) [48:25] Background on Margalynne Armstrong [48:40] “March on Gumdrop Field-Cello Leader” by Blue Dot Sessions The 14th Amendment The impeachment of Andrew Johnson (Politico) Recommend Listen: More Perfect’s American Pendulum II [48:45] Light reading on: Recommend Listen: More Perfect’s The Political Thicket [50:15] Audio from Baker v. Carr (Oyez) [50:20] Audio from Reynolds v. Simms (Oyez) [50:40] “The Telling” by Blue Dot Sessions Related: The Guarantee Clause and California’s Republican Form of Government (UC Berkeley) [53:10] Guarantee Clause [53:30] Citizen for Fair Representation and Baird’s motion to intervene in LaVergne v. United States House of Representatives [52:10] More on the State of California’s motion to dismiss the Citizens for Fair Representation lawsuit (Siskyou Daily News) [54:25] More on Scott Stafne [01:00:40] “Velejo-Tense” by Blue Dot Sessions Historian Robert Calhoon polls support for the Revolution around 40 percent US Department of Veteran Affairs numbers Some additional forum chatter on Reddit’s r/AskHistorians Some light reading on Three Percenters Some recommended viewing on the Three Percenters (VICE) More additional reading on the Three Percenters (Anti Defamation League) And one last bit on the Three Percenters (politicalresearch.org) Light reading on the Oath Keepers (VICE) Additional reading on the Oath Keepers (Washington Post) A profile on the Oath Keepers (Mother Jones) [01:00:50] Some links to debunk the “three-percent myth” Excerpt played from this airing [01:01:55] “Jefferson State of Mind” on KCNR 1460 Southern Poverty Law Center’s spotlight on the State of Jefferson Oregon Public Broadcasting Quartz Gawker St. George News Los Angeles Times [01:03:30] More on LaVoy Finicum from [01:03:50] Light reading on the Malheur Standoff (The Oregonian) [01:04:10] Released video of Finicum’s traffic stop [01:07:00] “Olsted Harten” by Blue Dot Sessions [01:10:00] Recommended Podcast: Closer Than They Appear[01:10:10] Recommended Podcast Newsletter: Constant Listener

In this episode we talk all about the art of redistricting, gerrymandering, what it is and why it matters. Segment 1: What is Redistricting? Simply put, redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative districts are drawn. The reason redistricting is necessary is that population growth does not occur equally across states or districts, and so following the completion of the United States Census every ten years, the districts must be “redrawn” to ensure that districts have nearly equal populations. For the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives, this means that every ten years, some states lose one or more congressional districts while others gain them. For the last round of redistricting, following the 2010 Census, ten states (IL, IA, LA, MA, MI, MO, NJ, NY, OH and PA) lost at least one district, while eight states (AZ, FL, GA, NV, SC, TX, UT, and WA) gained seats, with Texas gaining four. Looking at projections on who will gain and lose seats after 2020, a lot of the same midwestern states are losing seats, with Texas again a big gainer of 3 seats and other Sun Belt states set to gain as well. For state legislative districts, since each state has a fixed number of districts that does not change, district boundaries are simply redrawn according to where relative population growth occurred within the state. Segment 2: Sounds Important…So Who Draws the Lines? Obviously, even in instances where a state is not gaining or losing seats, the district boundaries will still need to change to reflect the current population of the state. In general, each state has guidelines related to the contiguity and compactness or the districts, and some states consider “communities of interest” and existing political boundaries. The exact process for drawing the lines varies by state, but the most important question is: Who’s in charge? In 37 of the 50 states, the state legislature draws Congressional lines, meaning that is the predominant method by which Congressional districts are drawn. In an additional 4 states (AZ, CA, ID and WA), an independent commission draws the lines, and in Hawaii and New Jersey a politician commission fills that role. For state legislative lines, the state legislature is responsible in 37 states, while independent commissions handle the job in 6 states and politician commissions are responsible in 7 states, including our home state of Colorado. Here in Colorado, the 11-person reapportionment commission consists of one person appointed by each party’s leader in both the house and the senate, plus three members appointed by the governor and four members appointed by the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court (currently, Roy Romer appointee Nancy Rice). Which party holds a majority on these commissions is often determined by who holds the governorship. Practically, this makes control of the state legislature and governor’s mansion critically important to the redistricting process. With full control, a political party is able to draw districts that significantly cement and enhance their power within a state using a process called partisan gerrymandering. As New York Times Magazine staff writer Emily Bazelon notes in a recent article on redistricting, partisan gerrymandering in 17 Republican controlled states (including some states that are traditional red states, like OH, MI, PA and WI) allowed Republicans in 2012 to win 72% of the seats despite winning only 53% of the vote. Similarly, in the 6 states where Democrats had full control, their candidates won only 56% of the vote but won 71% of the seats. Segment 3: That Doesn’t Sound Fair…What about Redistricting Law? Believe it or not, the problem of districts being unfairly apportioned used to be a lot worse. As late as the early 1960’s there was a state assembly district in Vermont that had just 36 people, while the largest district in the state had 35,000. And a rural California state senate district had 14,000 voters compared to Los Angeles’s only state senate district which had more than 6 million voters. Beginning in the early 1960’s the Supreme Court intervened to end these disparities, claiming jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment in Baker v. Carr (1962), and establishing the doctrine of “one person, one vote” for both state legislative and congressional districts. Practically, what this means is that districts have to be roughly equal in population, so that a vote in one district is worth as much as a vote in another. Federal law, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, also attempts to limit gerrymandering that is racially discriminatory, stating that: “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by state or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” In the context of redistricting, that means that plans can’t be intended to dilute minority votes, and they also can’t cause “retrogression” in minority political opportunity, whether intended or not. Prior to 2013, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required certain states and jurisdictions to seek preclearance from the Justice Department when redrawing lines, as described here. However, in the case of Shelby v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula that was used to require preclearance, based on the fact that it did not rely upon current data. So while Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was not struck down, most of the jurisdictions that have had to seek preclearance for new redistricting plans in the past no longer have to do so. In an upcoming decision that will have far-reaching implications for how redistricting is done, the Supreme Court will consider in Gill v. Whitford (which centers on Wisconsin’s 2011 redistricting plan) whether partisan gerrymandering (as opposed to racial gerrymandering) violates the constitution. As Bazelon notes in her article, the plaintiffs aren’t asking the Supreme Court to stop gerrymandering entirely – they are simply asking the Court to say that it’s possible for it to go too far. They are also offering a second argument that comes from the 1st Amendment, that partisan gerrymandering “subjects a group of voters or their party to disfavored treatment by reason of their views.”  

When Chief Justice Earl Warren was asked at the end of his career, “What was the most important case of your tenure?”, there were a lot of answers he could have given. After all, he had presided over some of the most important decisions in the court’s history — cases that dealt with segregation in schools, the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, just to name a few. But his answer was a surprise: He said, “Baker v. Carr,” a 1962 redistricting case.  On this episode of More Perfect, we talk about why this case was so important; important enough, in fact, that it pushed one Supreme Court justice to a nervous breakdown, brought a boiling feud to a head, put one justice in the hospital, and changed the course of the Supreme Court — and the nation — forever. Associate Justice William O. Douglas (L) and Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter (R) (Harris & Ewing Photography/Library of Congress) Top Row (left-right): Charles E. Whittaker, John M. Harlan,William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart. Bottom Row (left-right): William O. Douglas, Hugo L. Black, Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, Tom C. Clark. (Library of Congress)    Associate Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Whittaker at his desk in his chambers. (Heywood Davis)  The key links: - Biographies of Charles Evans Whittaker, Felix Frankfurter, and William O. Douglas from Oyez- A biography of Charles Evans Whittaker written by Craig Alan Smith- A biography of Felix Frankfurter written by H.N. Hirsch- A biography of William O. Douglas written by Bruce Allen Murphy- A book about the history of "one person, one vote" written by J. Douglas Smith- A roundtable discussion on C-SPAN about Baker v. Carr The key voices: - Craig Smith, Charles Whittaker's biographer and Professor of History and Political Science at California University of Pennsylvania - Tara Grove, Professor of Law and Robert and Elizabeth Scott Research Professor at William & Mary Law School- Louis Michael Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown Law- Guy-Uriel Charles, Charles S. Rhyne Professor of Law at Duke Law- Samuel Issacharoff, Bonnie and Richard Reiss Professor of Constitutional Law, NYU Law- J. Douglas Smith, author of "On Democracy's Doorstep"- Alan Kohn, former Supreme Court clerk for Charles Whittaker, 1957 Term- Kent Whittaker, Charles Whittaker's son- Kate Whittaker, Charles Whittaker's granddaughter The key cases: - 1962: Baker v. Carr- 2000: Bush v. Gore- 2016: Evenwel v. Abbott Music in this episode by Gyan Riley, Alex Overington, David Herman, Tobin Low and Jad Abumrad.  More Perfect is funded in part by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Archival interviews with Justice William O. Douglas come from the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections at Princeton University Library. Special thanks to Whittaker's clerks: Heywood Davis, Jerry Libin and James Adler. Also big thanks to Jerry Goldman at Oyez.

This story comes from Radiolab's first ever spin-off podcast, More Perfect. To hear more, subscribe here. When Chief Justice Earl Warren was asked at the end of his career, “What was the most important case of your tenure?”, there were a lot of answers he could have given. After all, he had presided over some of the most important decisions in the court’s history — cases that dealt with segregation in schools, the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, just to name a few. But his answer was a surprise: He said, “Baker v. Carr,” a 1962 redistricting case.  On this episode of More Perfect, we talk about why this case was so important; important enough, in fact, that it pushed one Supreme Court justice to a nervous breakdown, brought a boiling feud to a head, put one justice in the hospital, and changed the course of the Supreme Court — and the nation — forever. Associate Justice William O. Douglas (L) and Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter (R) (Harris & Ewing Photography/Library of Congress) Top Row (left-right): Charles E. Whittaker, John M. Harlan,William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart. Bottom Row (left-right): William O. Douglas, Hugo L. Black, Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, Tom C. Clark. (Library of Congress) Associate Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Whittaker at his desk in his chambers. (Heywood Davis) Music in this episode by Gyan Riley, Alex Overington, David Herman, Tobin Low and Jad Abumrad.  More Perfect is funded in part by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Archival interviews with Justice William O. Douglas come from the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections at Princeton University Library. Special thanks to Whittaker's clerks: Heywood Davis, Jerry Libin and James Adler. Also big thanks to Jerry Goldman at Oyez.  

Theodore Olson and Douglas Smith talk about the 1962 Supreme Court case [Baker v. Carr], in which the Court ruled that the drawing of election districts could be considered by the Federal Courts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

November 4, 2011 Baker v. Carr After 50 Years: Appraising the Reapportionment Revolution - Panel III The Law Review Symposium Case Western Reserve University School of Law Moderator Jonathan Entin Speakers Michael Solimine, Margo J. Anderson, Micah Altman, Michael McDonald, Neil Kinkopf

November 4, 2011 Baker v. Carr After 50 Years: Appraising the Reapportionment Revolution - Intro and Lecture "Reapportionment and the Right to Vote: Baker's Legacy" The Law Review Symposium Case Western Reserve University School of Law Introduction: Jonathan Entin Speaker: Samuel Issacharoff

November 4, 2011 Baker v. Carr After 50 Years: Appraising the Reapportionment Revolution -Panel I The Law Review Symposium Case Western Reserve University School of Law Moderator: Jonathan H. Adler Speakers Nelson Lund, Daniel Tokaji, S. Candice Hoke

November 4, 2011 Baker v. Carr After 50 Years: Appraising the Reapportionment Revolution - Panel II - Real Impact Of Re-Districting On Elections Case Western Reserve University School of Law The Law Review Symposium Moderator Jessie Hill Speakers Justin Buchler, Mark Salling, Tom Brunell, John Griffin, Michael Kang