Final answer:
Congressional apportionment can be unfair due to malapportionment and gerrymandering, which can lead to unequal representation. The Supreme Court's Baker v. Carr decision allows federal courts to decide on redistricting cases, endorsing federal intervention to ensure fair representation. The principle of one person, one vote aims for equitable congressional districts based on population.
Step-by-step explanation:
Congressional apportionment can be considered unfair due to various factors such as malapportionment, where district boundaries are not regularly adjusted for even representation, and gerrymandering, where district lines are manipulated to favor a specific group or political party. The Supreme Court case Baker v. Carr ruled that federal courts can decide on redistricting cases, setting a precedent for substantial legal intervention in the redistricting process. Moreover, following the decision in Reynolds v. Simms, the court determined that each congressional district must contain roughly the same number of people, thereby endorsing the principle of one person, one vote, in order to achieve fair and equal representation.
Today, the U.S. typically has around 700,000 citizens per congressional district, except in states with populations not warranting more than one representative. This apportionment ensures that districts are equitably based on population, taking into account census data every ten years. However, as population shifts occur, the process of redrawing districts to maintain equal populations, known as reapportionment and redistricting, can lead to politically motivated boundary changes, highlighting the fundamental challenges of creating fair congressional districts.