The Case of Baker v Carr - Research Paper Example

Equality for all persons is a fundamental principle enshrined within the provisions of the Constitution of the United s, notably the First and fourteenth amendments. Several cases may be cited that have made significant contributions towards promoting equality, such as Roe v Wade, which promoted the rights of women to have an abortion or Brown v Board of Education, which pushed for the elimination of segregation in education. Chief Justice Warren, the author of the court’s ruling in the case of Brown v Board of Education, stated that credit for the trend of court decisions to go in favour of equality really belonged to the case of Baker v Carr, with the enforcement of the fourteen amendment to the Constitution of the United States becoming vital in this context. This essay examines the merit of this proposition by posing the research problem: How does the challenge to constitutionality of apportionment of electoral districts in the case of Baker v Carr impact upon the fourteenth amendment provisions and set the stage for the development of equality in the future decisions handed out by courts. Introduction: Where the question of equality arises, it would include elements such as political equality, and equality in access to education. The right to vote and the determination and distribution of this right would play a role in arriving at the determination of whether or not equality has been established. Apportionment cases have been significant within the context of establishing equality, whether in supporting the contention that any abridgment of voting rights through discrimination imposed upon them is a violation of the principles of equality, or in ruling that such claims should be dismissed on the basis of a “failure to state a claim of federal right.”1 Apportionment cases have raised the issue of allocation and distribution of voting rights, which are relevant in the context of the fourteenth amendment, which supports the equality enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The major hypothesis that would be tested in this study is therefore as follows: The trail linking cases of apportionment rights to the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment make the case of Baker v Carr a significant one. This hypothesis will be tested through a rigorous analysis of secondary data based upon the premise and explanations outlined further below in the research design. Literature review: The Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States has been the vehicle which has generated a range of transformations in the protection of rights.2 In essence, as Zuckert points out after an analysis of the fourteenth amendment, it is the congressional power embodied under this amendment which has been formalized by the Supreme Court in Civil Rights Cases3 that have established equality for the blacks by outlawing discrimination in public places and in education for example, through enforcement of the equal protection clause under the fourteenth amendment4. The relationship between the fourteenth amendment and the Bill of Rights has been the subject of a debate that goes to the very roots and fundamental objectives of the Constitution of the United States5. The earlier belief tended to the proposition that certain natural rights like equality were inalienable, hence amendments and provisions of the Constitution were geared towards the protection of rights rather than the creation of rights.6 Graham has argued that in the context of anti segregation measures and enforcement of the rights of the blacks as encapsulated in Supreme Court decisions enforcing protection for the Negro, it is this implied declaratory nature of the fourteenth amendment which has been questioned, giving rise to the need for the Courts to actively adjudicate in favour of enforcing protection to Negros based upon prevailing conditions, especially representation in voting rights, rather than assuming they were naturally occurring rights framed in the Constitution. The case of Baker v Carr7 was significant in that it established a chain of precedent that led to the development of the rule of one person, one vote for apportionment purposes. The issue at stake in the case was the constitutionality of the voting districts. The number of legislators in each county had been fixed years ago but with the explosion of population in some urban areas, districts in those areas were unrepresented in terms of number of legislators available to deal with the concerns of members of the public. The case of Baker v Carr brought suit on the basis that the inadequate apportionment denied voters the equal rights that they were entitled to under the fourteenth amendment. The federal Court refused to adjudicate on the manner, holding that the issue in question was a political one which could blur the boundaries between the legislative and judicial arms of Government. The Supreme Court however held that the federal Courts did have authority to intervene in the matter, to determine the constitutionality of the apportionment of the voting districts and whether or not voter interests were adequately represented. The case was then remanded back to the federal Court. The precedent established in this case, i.e., that the constitutionality of electoral apportionment could be challenged, led to a long line of apportionment cases at the federal courts, one of which was Gray v Sanders8, brought before the federal court in Georgia in 1963. The issue raised in this case was similar to Baker v Carr 9 in that it challenged electoral apportionment of voting districts; the dispute centred around Fulton County with 14.11% of the State’s population, but only 1.46% of the vote10. When the case moved up to the Supreme Court, it was held that the apportionment was indeed disproportionate to the population and political equality required that the correct principle that should apply would be one person, one vote. It is significant to note however, that the case raised the question of application of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, which thereby deals with the issue of equality. Research design: This study proposes a pragmatic paradigm of enquiry; a paradigm determines the intent and motivation for a study, as well as the way in which the knowledge is interpreted and studied11. The pragmatic paradigm places the research problem at the centre of focus and applies all the possible approaches to an understanding of this problem.12 This is a desirable approach for this particular study because pragmatism does not confine itself to one system of philosophy or reality, but is more focused on the research problem itself, which in the case of this study, is the most important element. In terms of application of data analysis methods also, the pragmatic paradigm appeared more relevant. Methods of data analysis and interpretation may be quantitative or qualitative. The quantitative paradigm is objective and is based on positivism.13 The premise of the quantitative approach is that there is only one truth. Objective reality and human perception are distinct from each other; as a result it is possible for a researcher to study a phenomenon without influencing it or allowing it to influence him/her (Sale et al, 2002:45). A purely quantitative approach many not however, be appropriate for this study because it largely deals with numerical data which are collected for statistical analysis. While the focus of the quantitative approach is mainly on numerical data, qualitative analysis emphasizes process and meanings. In assessing the validity of the results obtained from research, the quantitative researcher would examine how well the results correspond to how things really are in the world, whereas a qualitative researcher would find the results obtained valid only to the extent that they conform to a description with which the researcher agrees. The underlying belief of the researcher about reality is therefore reflected in the research method that is chosen. The separation of the quantitative and qualitative streams have focused on the differences between the two methods and created the belief that the two systems are incompatible with each other and must not be mixed.14 The quantitative research paradigm advocates the virtues of “hard, generalizable” survey data while the qualitative research paradigm is focused on the benefits of “deep, rich, observational data”.15 Qualitative models are more able than traditional models to express states of incomplete knowledge about continuous mechanisms.16 (Crabtree, 1999). For purposes of this study, it will be necessary to start off from the case precedent established by Baker v Carr and then examine more cases in order to answer the research question as to how the constitutionality of apportionment districts impacted upon subsequent landmark decisions by the Supreme Court on equality. As a result, a quantitative approach would not apply at all; rather it is the qualitative approach which would be helpful, in order to assess the underlying subjectivity and rationale behind court decisions and the details contained within them which were built upon successfully in arriving at different outcomes on equality. Qualitative models are more able than traditional models to express states of incomplete knowledge about continuous mechanisms.17 Qualitative simulation guarantees to find all possible behaviours consistent with the knowledge in the model. This expressive power and coverage are important in problem solving for diagnosis, design, monitoring, and explanation. Qualitative evaluation data usually refers to raw, descriptive information about: programs/products and the people who participate in/use them or are affected by them and; programs/products and the people who develop or use them.18 All of these reasons support the use of a qualitative rather than a quantitative approach in assessing the research question. An inductive conceptual framework would be favoured, with the ultimate objective of identifying common elements and trends pertaining to the fourteenth amendment in order to arrive at an answer to the research question. The lack of existing theory and research specifically on the trail linking apportionment of voting rights to the active exercise of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment would of necessity, make this study one based on underlying assumptions made in relation to the data collected. Data Collection: The primary data collection method would also be qualitative and rely upon case histories and/or case analyses, as well as expert opinions/research into the fourteenth amendment and apportionment of rights. It is likely that secondary data would be primarily used, and according to Hawkins and Tull 19 secondary research is to use others’ data, which are collected for others’ purpose to achieve research goals or answer research questions. In other words, secondary research is set up on the base of exploiting or extending what the original author said to help resolve your problem.20 These secondary data include previous government reports, articles, newspapers, case histories, professional journals or the statistics from the reputation institutions.21 This would be the primary source of data for this study and the relevant data would be analyzed accordingly. One advantage with using secondary data is that it is a pragmatic way to do the research because such data can go beyond geographical distance and time distance. Thus, compared with others, there are savings in time and costs.22 Moreover, it is possible to squeeze more time and spend it in thinking about the research aims and taking more efforts in analyzing and interpreting the data.23 Secondly, the secondary data is generally of a higher quality than that personally collected by the researcher through interviews and surveys.24 Moreover, secondary data are a source of permanent information and available in a form that may be checked relatively easily by others.25 Conclusions: The scope of the study would be limited to constitutional cases arising within the United States. The findings are likely to support the conclusion that the case of Baker v Carr was indeed significant because it started the trend which led to the examination of apportionment of voting rights by the Supreme Court. This in turn would have highlighted the importance of equality in order to ensure that the political rights of all individuals were fairly represented. While cases such as Brown v the Board of Education have been universally acknowledged as landmark cases establishing the equality of the Negro, it appears very likely that the findings from this study would reveal the importance of cases such as Baker v Carr in leading up to these landmark decisions, thereby corroborating the opinions of Justice Warren. Bibliography Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods, UK: Oxford University Press. Crabtree, Benjamin F and Miller, William L, 1999. “Doing Qualitative research”, (2nd edn) London: Sage Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mertens, D.M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage. Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J and Leech, Nancy L, 2005. “On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies”, International Journal of Social research Methodology, 8(5): 375-387 Patton, M, 1987. “How to use qualitative methods in evaluation”, London: Sage Publications Sale, Joanna E.M., Lohfeld, Lynne H and Brazil, Kevin, 2002. “Revising the Quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed methods research”, Quality and Quantity, 36: 43-53 Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A, 2003. “Research Methods for Business Students”, Pearson Education Limited. Sieber, S.D., 1973. “The integration of field work and survey methods”, American Journal of Sociology, 73:1335-1359, at pp 1335 Silverman, D. (1993).Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage. Tull, D.S. and Hawkins, D.I, 1993. “Market research” (6th edn) Prentice Hall Cases cited: Baker v Carr 369 US 186 Gray v Sanders (1963) 372 US 368 Read More