At issue is the principle dating back to the 1960s when the Supreme Court held that state legislative districts must be drawn so they are equal in population. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the Court’s refusal to hear that case, saying that the Court had “left a critical variable in the [‘one person, one vote’] requirement undefined.
Using the total population figures, the challengers said, dilutes the voting power of residents in districts with large numbers of people who are not eligible to vote, violating the one-person, one-vote requirement. All rights reserved. The U.S. government argued that only total population is allowed. Supreme Court rules on one-man, one-vote issue, Supreme Court to Hear Case on Drawing Voting Districts. But Ginsburg wrote that the court wasn’t required to address the question of whether only total population was allowed, and did not do so.
"The problem is that what you're forgetting is the dual interest," she said.
Some voting rights advocates worried that a court ruling in favor of Texas’ position, though technically a victory, might lead Texas and other red states to switch to a voter-based system on the next round of redistricting after 2020. Ms Evenwel and Mr Pfenniger live in rural districts where most people are eligible to vote, in contrast to other Texas districts that are home to more children, ex-felons and non-citizens—people who do not enjoy the franchise.
Justice Ginsburg announces opinion in One Person One Vote case.
The concept of equal representation lies at the bedrock of the American constitutional system, Justice Ginsburg wrote. Sign up to our free daily newsletter, The Economist today, Published since September 1843 to take part in “a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress.”.
Justice Ginsburg announces opinion in One Person One Vote case. He lives in Brooklyn with his family. The Supreme Court heard a case Tuesday that could upend the way that states draw their legislative lines "That question is whether the one person, one vote rule affords eligible voters any reasonable protection," he said. Tuesday, justices dealt with something they've never explicitly answered: whether the doctrine applies to the general population or the voting population.
Civil rights groups are watching the case carefully, fearful that if the Court rules with the plaintiffs, it could potentially shift power from urban areas -- districts that tend to include a higher percentage of individuals not eligible to vote such as non-citizens, released felons and children -- to rural areas that are more likely to favor Republicans.
The ruling does not bar states from instead counting the voting population, which he called "an important and sensitive question that we can consider if and when" such a case comes before the court. In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito was sceptical of the idea that total population is the only figure reconcilable with the nation’s democratic ideals.
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court grappled Tuesday with the "one person, one vote" doctrine in a case that could upend the way that states draw their legislative lines. A case of surprise unanimity at the Supreme Court over voting rights, The fifth Democratic primary debate showed that a cull is overdue, The election for Kentucky’s governor will be a referendum on Donald Trump, A state court blocks North Carolina’s Republican-friendly map. She also questioned the practical consequences of using data that she said had "almost decisively been proven as being inadequate" to measure eligible voters. This is the major caveat in an otherwise sweeping take-down of the eligible-voter theory.
But Ilya Shapiro of the libertarian Cato Institute says times have changed since the court came down with the one-person, one-vote doctrine and that modern immigration patterns have created disparities in voting districts. "There is a voting interest but there is also a representation interest," she said. He called the court's decision not to reach the issue "a big victory for the federal government's position.". There is no “mooring in the equal-protection clause” for the idea that districts must be distributed according to eligible voters, but “because history, precedent, and practice suffice to reveal the infirmity of appellants’ claims, we need not and do not resolve whether...states may draw districts to equalise voter-eligible population rather than total population”. ", "But why is one option exclusive of the other?"
That’s likely to mean states continue to use total population to draw their districts. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that when it comes to the apportionment of House members, total population is used as the metric.
Justices Alito and Breyer absent, and Justice Sotomayor not shown. But Richard Pildes, a leading election law scholar and practitioner who has worked for numerous Democratic candidates, had predicted that the court would easily reject the challenge. "Just as it was intolerable for a rural district with 500 voters to have the same representation in a state legislature as an urban district with 5,000 voters, it's now constitutionally suspect to have that disparity between a heavily (noncitizen) foreign-born district and one with mostly native-born citizens," Shapiro wrote in an essay for Scotusblog. she asked Consovoy. Edward Blum, the director of a conservative group called Project on Fair Representation, is backing the challenge. One person, one vote A case of surprise unanimity at the Supreme Court over voting rights. Justice Kennedy -- often a key swing vote -- asked. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick, one of the savviest Supreme Court journalists, also came away from the hearing thinking “it’s clear that...the justices will likely break along the usual partisan lines”.
Justices Alito and Breyer absent, and Justice Sotomayor not shown. ‘One Person, One Vote’ Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court The court's rejection of the challenge was a victory for the federal government, which advocated using total population as a … The Supreme Court accepted a case that will require the Justices to decide just what it meant when it established the "one person, one vote" rule for drawing legislative districts. "This appeal presents a fundamental question," William S. Consovoy, a lawyer for Evenwel, told the justices.
"It's our position," he said, "that we could choose a reliable measure of voting-eligible population without running afoul of the Equal Protection Clauses' guarantee against invidious discrimination. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that most jurisdictions have used equal population to draw district boundaries. You have population equality and voter equality, both, especially when you have indicated that a voter-based apportionment is valid and serves important purposes?". And in briefs supporting Texas, civil rights groups and the Democratic National Committee worry that an adverse ruling might negatively impact those who don't vote.
"Well, it is called "one person, one vote," that seems to be designed to protect voters," he said. Pildes wrote Monday that the ruling represented "an overwhelming consensus...for the straightforward resolution of the issue, despite the wildly exaggerated fears that had been stoked up about this case.".
Art Lien. "Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the court.