Baker v. Carr: New Light on the Constitutional Guarantee of Republican Government

Abstract

THE RECENT CASE Of Baker v. Carr' may well be notable for a variety of reasons; certainly for its holding that the validity of Tennesee's legislative apportionment was justiciable when raised under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.2 But the decision may also have lasting importance for the light it casts on the guarantee clause of article IV, section 4, of the Constitution. That provision declares that the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ... . Although the particular issue involved in Baker v. Carr was disposed of solely by reference to allegations under the fourteenth amendment,3 the Supreme Court was afforded an excellent opportunity to comment on the present status of the republican form of government clause. That several of the justices actually felt impelled to do so, and at some length, may give cause for reflection about a constitutional provision long deemed beyond judicial purview. The objectives of this brief Article are limited. First, an attempt will be made to analyze Baker v. Carr as it sheds light on the justiciability of questions raised under the guarantee. The Court's discussion of this question, though extensive, fails to clarify the present state of the law. Second, an effort will be made to demonstrate that, despite the absence of a claim based upon the guarantee clause in Baker, the case is almost certain to encourage a related kind of apportionment suit whose resolution will inevitably require the judiciary to grapple with that provision. Finally, it will be concluded that the Court can successfully entertain this future class of apportionment suits on the merits. In such cases it will face no greater difficulties or more delicate matters than it did in Baker. More specifically, it will be able to construct satisfactory standards for applying the guarantee to these new situations. But in doing so, it should make clear that its decision is grounded on the guarantee. Otherwise, its action will only further obscure the real issue and render its proper analysis and solution more difficult.