[EL] automatic voter registration's ties to Evenwel v Abbot and ‘one person, one vote'

[Douglas Johnson]

I believe there is an interesting side note to the discussions about automatic voter registration. The Supreme Court’s current view on “One Person, One Vote” rule for apportionment and redistricting has been almost (but not quite) universally implemented as an “equal number of people” rule because (as  <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/the-supreme-courts-big-data-problem-118568.html#.VXcWf89VhBc> Dr. Persily laid out) the Census data on equal numbers of people is much more precise and reliable than estimates of eligible voter populations.

 

But what happens when either the federal government or the states implement automatic universal voter registration? Suddenly we have a precise count and precise locations on eligible voters – arguably, data that is at least as reliable (and perhaps even more reliable) than the Census population counts.

 

Under the Court’s current “it’s up to the states to choose their redistricting base numbers” philosophy, things could get wild. Republicans in states that choose the “eligible voter” base will gain FAR more political power than they might lose from an increased number of voters casting ballots. And swing states could see chaos, with changes from “equal population” to “equal number of eligible voter” to “equal population” from redistricting cycle to redistricting cycle generating huge swings in district configurations every decade (or possible even more often).

 

For good reason, much of the discussion around Evenwel v Abbot has been around the lack of reliability of the Citizen Voting Age Population data. And much of that debate has quietly assumed that opponents of using an “eligible voter” basis for redistricting could block the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census short form. But that question may become irrelevant, if a federal mandate of national or state eligible voter databases creates the database needed for redistricting using an “eligible voter” population base.

 

In short, I would argue that advocates of universal and automatic eligible voter registration should welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Evenwel v Abbot and hope the Court actively endorses an “equal population” basis for redistricting. If not, the work of those approaching the automatic eligible voter registration issue with the goal of increased Democratic political power may lose by winning (I recognize many advocates are not approaching it with that goal, but . . . .). And watch for those equally focused on finding ways to increase Republican political power to suddenly become interested in automatic eligible voter registration in 3 . . . .2 . . . .1. . . . .

 

As is so often the case in elections reform (as I can personally attest, having been involved in the issue since the late 1980s), unintended consequences are a given. Reformers just have to carefully think through proposals to ensure negative unintended consequences do not outweigh any benefits achieved.

 

-          Doug

 

Douglas Johnson, Fellow

Rose Institute of State and Local Government

at Claremont McKenna College 

 <mailto:douglas.johnson at cmc.edu> douglas.johnson at cmc.edu

310-200-2058 

 

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150609/a7ecca5d/attachment.html>