As a result of the Supreme Court decision in Baker v. Carr, courts can require states to keep voting districts the same even if the population changes. change the number of voting districts within the state. appoint government officials if voting districts are unfair. redraw voting districts that are roughly equal in population.

As a result of the Supreme Court decision in Baker v. Carr, courts can redraw voting districts that are roughly equal in population

According to the case in question, the court gave a ruling that the each voting district had equal protection and that the legislature had to be given based on population.

This was as a result of the previous way of doing things where some areas had more representation than others in the legislature. The ruling of the court made sure that this changed.

Therefore, the correct answer is option D

Read more here:

link

redraw voting districts that are roughly equal in population

Explanation:

In Baker v. Carr (1962), held that Tennessee had infringed the constitutional right of equal protection and forced its legislature to reapportion itself based on population. Before that, rural areas had been overrepresented when compared to urban and suburban areas, especially in the South. Although this case didn´t change electoral districts immediatly, it did set a precedent about federal courts addressing redistricting, and by 1964, in Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims,  the United States House of Representatives and the state legislatures were required to establish electoral districts of equal population based on the idea of one man, one vote.

.

well i cant say as there are no answers for me to choose from.

explanation:

sorry!

the melanesian is basically practicing magic.