The defendant was the secretary of state for the state involved and the plaintiff had challenged the validity of a 1901 Tennessee statute apportioning members of the General Assembly.
In its majority decision the court cited two prior cases: U.S. v. Classic and U.S. v. Moseley. Justices Harlan and Frankfurter dissented claiming that they could find nothing in the Constitution, particularly the Equal Protection clause, to justify the decision. The defendant was the secretary of state for the state involved and the plaintiff had challenged the validity of a 1901 Tennessee statute apportioning members of the General Assembly. FTP, name this 1962 case that focused on discriminatory redistricting patterns.
In its majority decision the court cited two prior cases: U.S. v. Classic and U.S. v. Moseley.
{Baker}{ v. }{Carr}