What was the outcome of Baker v. Carr regarding state electoral districts?

The outcome of Baker v. Carr established that courts have the authority to review and intervene in the drawing of electoral district boundaries. This landmark decision set the precedent that questions of legislative apportionment are justiciable, meaning they can be addressed by the courts rather than being considered purely political issues outside of judicial review.

The case highlighted the principle of "one person, one vote," emphasizing that electoral districts must be drawn in a way that ensures equal representation. The Supreme Court's ruling indicated that federal courts could intervene to rectify instances where states did not adequately represent their populations in districting processes. Thus, the case played a crucial role in ensuring fair electoral representation and addressing issues of gerrymandering and disproportionate districting based on population shifts.

The options that suggest the court had no authority to review electoral districts or mandated states to re-district every election misinterpret the implications of the ruling. Likewise, the idea that the case was dismissed on political grounds overlooks the court's readiness to engage in matters of electoral fairness, reinforcing the doctrine that judicial scrutiny can and should take place regarding state electoral practices.