Answer:
Reapportionment after each census is important because the population of a state or district may shift. If enough population shifts occur, representation in that district and surrounding districts may no longer be fair and legal without reapportionment. In 1962, the United States Supreme Court heard a case called Baker v. Carr about reapportionment. Usually, House of Representative districts are a state issue, and the national government, including the Supreme Court, may not interfere. However, Charles Baker, a mayor in Tennessee, sued Tennessee Secretary of State Joe Carr because Tennessee had not redistricted or reapportioned in more than 50 years. In 1900, the population of urban Memphis, Tenn., was roughly equal to the rural district nearby, and it made sense that each district had one vote. However, by 1960, when Baker was mayor, the population had shifted, and though the urban population of Memphis was more than 10 times the rural district nearby, each area still had only one vote. Since Tennessee had not reapportioned its state voting on its own, Baker sued to bring the federal government into the dispute. The Supreme Court found that although it usually had no power in state apportionment issues, in this case it did, because the state had acted unfairly and had not treated each citizen the same. The Court found that the votes of the rural citizens were counting more than the votes of the urban citizens, and the state of Tennessee was forced to redistrict.
