Supreme Court to examine if Texas districts violate one person, one vote

Texas relies on a state’s total population, rather than eligible voters, to draw voting districts. In effect, that means voters in some districts have more voting clout than in other districts.

Joshua Roberts/Reuters
The Supreme Court is pictured in Washington, D.C., May 18, 2015.

One of the cornerstones of American democracy is the principle of one person, one vote.

But what happens to that principle of equality in voting if lawmakers rely on a state’s total population, rather than eligible voters, when drawing voting districts?

That’s the issue the US Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to examine in a legal challenge to state Senate districts in Texas. The case will be set for briefing and argument in the court’s next term, which begins in October.

The case involves a lawsuit filed by two Texas voters, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, who argue that their voting districts had been drawn unfairly because they include a larger number of eligible voters than other districts in the state.

Texas has 31 state Senate districts, each with about 811,000 people. Since the total population in any given district can include large numbers of ineligible voters – such as noncitizens and children – the actual number of eligible voters in each district can vary greatly.

In his brief urging the high court to take up the case, appellate lawyer William Consovoy argued that under a redistricting method embracing a total population approach, it would be permissible for Texas lawmakers to draft 30 new Senate districts each containing only one eligible voter (among many ineligible voters), with all other Texas voters packed into the 31st district.

“The constitutionality of that radical proposition clearly is a substantial federal question,” Mr. Consovoy wrote.

In defending the state’s voting districts as currently configured, Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller said the Supreme Court has permitted states to use total population to apportion legislative seats.

“Plaintiffs presume that the Equal Protection Clause requires states to apportion their legislative districts based on a particular measure of population,” Mr. Keller said. “But this court has recognized that states have a choice among multiple apportionment bases; it follows that the Equal Protection Clause does not mandate any particular apportionment base.”

There is no unsettled question for the high court to examine, Keller added.

The challengers disagree.

Ms. Evenwel lives in a mostly rural district in which roughly 584,000 citizens are eligible to vote. In contrast, there are only 372,000 eligible voters in a neighboring urban district.

The discrepancy means that voters in the urban district have more voting clout than voters in Evenwel’s rural district. And that, Evenwel’s lawyers argue, is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee of one person, one vote.

“We are grateful that the justices on the Supreme Court have agreed to hear our case,” Evenwel and Mr. Pfenninger said in a joint statement. “It is to be hoped that the outcome of our lawsuit will compel Texas to equalize the number of eligible voters in each district.”

The case was brought by a group based in Austin, Texas, the Project on Fair Representation. The group is run by Edward Blum, who has been active in several high court cases involving voting rights, equal protection, and affirmative action.

The case is Evenwel v. Abbott (14-940).

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.