Supreme Court Unequivocally Dismisses Conservative Effort to Alter 'Equal Voting for Each Individual' Principle
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of drawing legislative districts based on total population rather than only on the population of eligible or registered voters in the landmark case of Evenwel v. Abbott.
The decision, delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, means states can use the total number of residents, including non-citizens and non-voters, to establish equal-sized districts to satisfy the "one person, one vote" principle under the Equal Protection Clause.
The ruling has significant implications for electoral districting practices. It endorses counting all residents, not just eligible voters, to ensure equal representation for all people living in the district, irrespective of voter status.
The decision rejects claims that basing districts on total population dilutes the votes of eligible voters where there are many non-voters. It affirms the traditional practice consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment and longstanding precedent.
By allowing districts to be drawn on total population, the decision preserves the use of census data as currently collected and prevents states from excluding non-citizens or unregistered voters from redistricting counts.
The case has broader political and demographic implications, affecting how populations such as non-citizens, children, and others who cannot vote are represented. Some critics argue this can influence political power distribution and electoral outcomes in states with large non-voting populations.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Evenwel sets a strong precedent that counting total population is constitutionally valid. Legislative and political debates continue over whether apportionment should shift to using voting-eligible or citizen population data, as proposed by laws like the Equal Representation Act.
The dispute did not involve U.S. congressional districts. The Obama administration supported the Texas plan, while two of the court's conservatives, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, concurred only in the judgment and did not sign on to Ginsburg's opinion.
The victory for the conservative challengers could have shifted influence in U.S. state legislative races away from urban areas to rural ones. The case was about the manner in which Texas carved out voting districts for its state Senate, based on a count of every resident rather than just eligible voters.
The Project on Fair Representation, the group behind the challenge, also orchestrated a lawsuit from Shelby County, Alabama that in 2013 led the high court to invalidate a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The group is also involved in another important case heard by the Supreme Court in December, a white woman's challenge to a University of Texas admissions policy. The court has not yet ruled in that case.
The ruling was described as a "clear and important victory" by Nina Perales, vice president of litigation with the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund. The decision underscores the Supreme Court’s role in shaping electoral districting practices and the ongoing debates surrounding fair representation and voter rights.
[1] CNN [2] NPR
- This Supreme Court decision in Evenwel v. Abbott, regarding policy-and-legislation and politics, endorses the use of total population, including non-citizens and non-voters, to establish equal-sized districts for electoral districting practices, thereby following the "one person, one vote" principle under the Equal Protection Clause.
- The ruling on electoral districting practices, which falls under general-news, has broader political and demographic implications, as it can influence political power distribution and electoral outcomes, especially in states with large non-voting populations, thereby affecting how populations such as non-citizens, children, and others who cannot vote are represented.
