[EL] Breaking News: #SCOTUS to Hear One Person, One Vote Case

[Rick Hasen]

    Breaking News: #SCOTUS to Hear One Person, One Vote Case
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72739>

Posted onMay 26, 2015 6:38 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72739>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

In a surprise move, the Supreme Courtagreed to hear an appeal 
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052615zor_2co3.pdf>from 
a three judge court inEvenwel v. Abbott 
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/evenwel-v-abbott/>, a 
one-person, one vote case involving the counting of non-citizens in the 
creation of electoral districts. Ed Blum, the force behind the Fisher 
anti-affirmative action case and the Shelby County case striking down a 
key portion of the Voting Rights Act is also behind this case. The 
question involves whether Texas can draw districts using total 
population rather than total voters, an issue especially important given 
non-citizen Latinos living in parts of Texas. The claim is that 
representatives from these areas with non-citizens get too much moving 
power. A ruling in favor of the challengers would be a boost for areas 
with fewer numbers of non-citizens living there.The Court w

The question presented in thejurisdictional statement 
<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/14-940-js-pet.pdf>is:

    In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), this Court held that the
    Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a
    “one-person, one-vote” principle. This principle requires that,
    “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts,
    each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as
    far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for
    proportionally equal numbers of offi cials.” Hadley v. Junior Coll.
    Dist. of Metro. Kansas City, Mo., 397 U.S. 50, 56 (1970). In 2013,
    the Texas Legislature enacted a State Senate map creating districts
    that, while roughly equal in terms of total population, grossly
    malapportioned voters. Appellants, who live in Senate districts
    significantly overpopulated with voters, brought a one-person,
    onevote challenge, which the three-judge district court below
    dismissed for failure to state a claim. The district court held that
    Appellants’ constitutional challenge is a judicially unreviewable
    political question. The question presented is whether the
    “one-person, one-vote” principle of the Fourteenth Amendment creates
    a judicially enforceable right ensuring that the districting process
    does not deny voters an equal vote.

Here was Texas’s response in itsmotion to dismiss or affirm 
<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/14-940-bio.pdf>:

    The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs’ lawsuit for
    failure to state a claim. This appeal should be dismissed for lack
    of an unsettled substantial federal question, or the judgment should
    be summarily affirmed. Plaintiffs cite no case in which a court has
    accepted their claim that the Constitution compels States to
    apportion their legislative districts based on voter population, as
    opposed to or in addition to total population. And multiple
    precedents from this Court confirm that total population is a
    permissible apportionment base under the Equal Protection Clause.
    Nothing in this case warrants a different result.

The Court will hear the case next term, meaning that there are likely to 
be questions about the propriety of Texas’s redistricting for nearly the 
entire 10 years of its redistricting plan. (A Voting Rights Act section 
2 claim remains pending before a separate three-judge-court in San Antonio).

Like Texas, I had considered the issue fairly settled by the Supreme 
Court that states have the power to decide whether to use total 
population or another measure for drawing district lines.  That’s not to 
say that the one person, one vote concept was clear. Scholars including 
Sandy Levinson and Joey Fishkin had raised interesting conceptual 
questions about it.

[This post has been updated.]

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72739&title=Breaking%20News%3A%20%23SCOTUS%20to%20Hear%20One%20Person%2C%20One%20Vote%20Case&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150526/a761190e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150526/a761190e/attachment.png>