1 / 7

Baker v Carr Bush V Gore

Baker v Carr Bush V Gore. The Fourteenth Amendment The Equal Protection Clause States’ election laws. Baker v Carr 1962. Tennessee had failed to reapportion the state legislature for 60 years

jayden
Télécharger la présentation

Baker v Carr Bush V Gore

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Baker v Carr Bush V Gore The Fourteenth Amendment The Equal Protection Clause States’ election laws

  2. Baker v Carr 1962 • Tennessee had failed to reapportion the state legislature for 60 years • Baker, a voter, brought suit against the state (Joe Carr was a state official in charge of elections) in federal district court, claiming that the dilution of his vote as a result of the state's failure to reapportion violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

  3. The Supreme Court agreed with Baker that his rights had been violated under the equal protection clause • Even though the case concerned state leg, it led to reapportionment of congressional districts • “one man one vote” became the synopsis of the case

  4. Bush v Gore 2000 • At issue was the recount of the ballots in two counties in Florida • Electoral College meets Dec 15 to elect President-time constraint

  5. Because the ballots were not standardized the court ruled that the recount must stop • Governor Bush was awarded Florida’s electoral votes based on the original tally and therefore received the 270 voted need to become President

  6. Both cases involved the Equal Protection Clause of Amend. 14 • Both involved state election laws, not federal concerns • http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949

More Related