Which decision established the right of federal courts to review redistricting issues under the Equal Protection Clause?

• A. Baker v. Carr (1962)
• B. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
• C. Roe v. Wade (1973)
• D. Reynolds v. Sims

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is whether federal courts can review how electoral districts are drawn and whether those drawings treat voters with equal protection. Baker v. Carr (1962) answered yes, deciding that redistricting disputes raise justiciable questions and fall under the power of federal courts to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. This case opened the door for courts to intervene when district lines dilute some voters’ votes, establishing that district populations should be balanced to ensure equal protection.

While Reynolds v. Sims (1964) later extended the principle to require that state legislative districts be roughly equal in population, Baker v. Carr is the one that first established the authority of the judiciary to hear redistricting challenges on constitutional grounds. The other options deal with different topics or broader judicial review principles but do not establish the specific right to hear redistricting cases under the Equal Protection Clause.