history help?????????

Question

A major threshold in the evolution of state and local governments was the 1962 ruling by the U.S. supreme Court in Baker v. Carr. In this decision the court decreed
A.that the congress could not force unfunded mandates upon the staes and locales.
B.that the equal protection clause of hte Fourteenth Amendment required that there be equal funding based upon popilation of social welfare programs to the states from the federal government.
C.that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required that there be the same number of people in each of the legislative districts within a single state.
D.that the supremacy clause of article VI mandated that the national government could not regulate commerce within the states.

Answer 1

Baker v. Carr (1962)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Summary
In the State legislature of Tennessee, representation was determined by a 1901 law setting the number of legislators for each county. Urban areas, which had grown greatly in population since 1901, were underrepresented. Mayor Baker of Nashville brought suit, saying that the apportionment denied voters of urban areas equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The federal court refused to enter the “political thicket” of State districting, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court's Decision
In a 6-2 ruling, the Supreme Court held that federal courts have the power to determine the constitutionality of a State's voting districts.

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., wrote the majority opinion, stating that the plaintiffs' constitutional right to have their votes count fairly gave them the necessary legal interest to bring the lawsuit. He argued that the case did not involve a “political question” that prevented judicial review. A court could determine the constitutionality of a State's apportionment decisions, he wrote, without interfering with the legislature's political judgments. The case was returned to the federal court.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote a concurring opinion. He declared that if a voter no longer has “the full constitutional value of his franchise [right to vote], and the legislative branch fails to take appropriate restorative action, the doors of the courts must be open to him.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Harlan II argued that the federal equal protection clause does not prevent a State “from choosing any electoral legislative structure it thinks best suited to the interests, temper, and customs of its people.” If a State chose to “distribute electoral strength among geographical units, rather than according to a census of population,” he wrote, that choice “is…a rational decision of policy…entitled to equal respect from this Court.”


C is the answer from your multiple choice.

j

Answer 2

The ansewer is C. Im sure of it.

Answer 3

I'd have to say 'C'