Baker v. Carr (1962) addressed whether:

• A. The Supreme Court had no authority to hear cases involving legislative apportionment.
• B. The Supreme Court only heard cases of urban districts.
• C. Apportionment matters are exclusively political questions not subject to judicial review.
• D. The Supreme Court has authority to hear redistricting cases under the Fourteenth Amendment and helped establish the 'one person, one vote' doctrine.

Answer: (D)

The main idea tested is whether disputes over how legislative districts are drawn fall under the courts’ power to decide, and how Baker v. Carr established a path for federal review of redistricting. In this case the Supreme Court said that questions about apportionment are justiciable, meaning the judiciary can hear and decide them, rather than being dismissed as purely political questions. By recognizing that roughly equal populations in legislative districts are required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court opened the door for federal courts to intervene in state redistricting. This set the stage for the one person, one vote principle, later reinforced in Reynolds v. Sims, which demands that each vote carry roughly the same weight.

So this reflects the Court’s authority to hear redistricting cases under the Fourteenth Amendment and its role in establishing the one person, one vote standard. The other options miss the key point: the decision affirmed judicial review of apportionment, did not limit review to urban districts, and did not declare apportionment a purely political question outside the courts.