Baker v. Carr attacked the Tennessee apportionment scheme as a violation of the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That clause requires that the states treat like people the same way, and the plaintiffs argued that malapportionment violated this guarantee. There was much evidence of a violation, but before the courts could rule on the merits, they had to determine if they had jurisdiction. The case was initially heard by a three-judge panel which held that the courts had no jurisdiction. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. At that level the plaintiffs were joined by the U.S. government itself, represented by the solicitor general.

A Second Bite at the Apple.

The Supreme Court eventually heard oral arguments twice. This unusual step indicated the divisions within the Court. Felix...