Which case is the origin of the "one person, one vote" doctrine for congressional districts?

• A. Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
• B. Kent v. United States (1966)
• C. Baker v. Carr (1962)
• D. Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

Answer: (C)

The essential idea is how the courts established that voting power should be equal across districts and that redistricting claims can be heard in federal court. Baker v. Carr is the starting point because it held that apportionment challenges are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. By allowing federal courts to review how legislative districts are drawn, Baker opened the door for the Court to apply equal protection scrutiny to how populations are distributed across districts. That set the legal framework for measuring and correcting disparities in representation.

Following that, Reynolds v. Sims extended the equal-protection framework to state legislative districts, articulating the one person, one vote standard in practice. For congressional districts specifically, Wesberry v. Sanders later applied the same principle to the U.S. House. But without Baker v. Carr establishing justiciability in redistricting, the subsequent cases applying the doctrine to both state and federal districts wouldn’t have a viable path. That’s why Baker v. Carr is viewed as the origin point in this line of cases for congressional districts, among the options given.