contestada

In Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court interpreted the equal protection clause to
mean that:
A. states were not obligated to redistrict to ensure all votes counted
equally.
O
B. states had to redistrict to ensure that all votes counted equally.
O
C. states could redistrict to ensure that rural votes counted more
than urban votes.
O
D. states could determine when and how often they would redistrict.

Respuesta :

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, existed a landmark the United States Supreme Court case in which the Court had that redistricting privileges as a justifiable question under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Who is Baker v. Carr?

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, existed a landmark the United States Supreme Court case in which the Court had that redistricting privileges as a justifiable question under the Fourteenth Amendment, thus allowing federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases.

The Warren Court contacted a 6-2 verdict in favor of Baker. A lack of political query, previous court intervention in apportionment affairs, and equal security under the 14th amendment provided the court with enough reason to supervise legislative apportionment. Court acquired the power to rule on apportionment laws.The Supreme Court decided for Baker. They judged that federal courts maintain the authority to enforce the 14th amendment if the state legislative districts stand disproportionately populated.

To learn more about Baker v. Carr refer to:

https://brainly.com/question/2407362

#SPJ9

Otras preguntas