[EL] The Supreme Court's Decision to Decide Whether It's One Person, One Vote or One Voter, One Vote

Tue May 26 11:56:18 PDT 2015

On the Congress-versus-state-legislature point: If the Court says in
Evenwel that CVAP, or something like it, is the relevant baseline in state
redistricting, I could certainly write the brief that says that a different
rule applies in congressional redistricting.  But the other side would have
a lot to work with, too, starting with the text of Article I and extending
through language in Wesberry and subsequent cases that looks a lot like the
language they'll rely on in Reynolds and subsequent cases.  I would expect
that, *if the Court rules that CVAP or something like it is the relevant
baseline in state redistricting*, the same Court will apply the same rule
to congressional redistricting.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Douglas Johnson <djohnson at ndcresearch.com>
wrote:

> I agree Rick is correct about the different population basis for
> congressional vs other districts – thanks for the reminder.
>
>
>
> But the point remains the same, if slightly more limited:
>
>
>
> The largest State Assembly District in California (AD78 in San Diego) has
> 352,199 eligible voters (defined by CVAP) while the smallest (AD53 in Los
> Angeles) has 164,102: a 2.15 to 1 margin.
>
>
>
> -          Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas Johnson, Fellow
>
> Rose Institute of State and Local Government
>
> at Claremont McKenna College
>
> douglas.johnson at cmc.edu
>
> 310-200-2058
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:16 AM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] The Supreme Court's Decision to Decide Whether It's
> One Person, One Vote or One Voter, One Vote
>
>
>
> The Evenwel case is about state, not congressional, redistricting.  And
> the source of the one person, one vote rule in the two contexts is not the
> same. Nonetheless, the logic of the decision in Evenwel will likely carry
> over to congressional redistricting.
>
> On 5/26/15 11:12 AM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
>
> For reference:
>
>
>
> I went back to the data from the California Independent Redistricting
> Commission
> <http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/downloads/meeting_handouts_082011/crc_20110815_5appendix_3.pdf>
> and just posted in the California Voting Rights Act Facebook page
> <http://www.facebook.com/vraofca> how big a change this would represent:
>
>
>
> In California, Congressional Districts are equal in total population
> (within 1 person), but vary widely in eligible voters (as defined by
> Citizen Voting Age Population). At the extremes, Congressional District 1
> has 521,232 eligible voters, while CD 40 has only 261,568 -- a two-to-one
> difference.
>
>
>
> CD 1 is in the far north of the state, while CD 40 is in Los Angeles
> County and encompasses Paramount, Downey, Bell, Maywood, and neighboring
> small cities.
>
>
>
> -          Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas Johnson, Fellow
>
> Rose Institute of State and Local Government
>
> at Claremont McKenna College
>
> douglas.johnson at cmc.edu
>
> 310-200-2058
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Samuel
> Bagenstos
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:35 AM
> *To:* Pildes, Rick
> *Cc:* <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu> (
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] The Supreme Court's Decision to Decide Whether It's
> One Person, One Vote or One Voter, One Vote
>
>
>
> Rick,
>
>
>
> Could you say more about the basis for the prediction in your last
> sentence?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Pildes, Rick <
> pildesr at exchange.law.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> The Supreme Court’s decision today to decide what “one person, one vote”
> actually means is not all that surprising, at least to many of us.  In all
> the years since the Court recognized that election districts must have
> equal populations, the Court never squarely resolved what the baseline
> ought to be for determining “equality” — must districts have equal numbers
> of residents or equal numbers of eligible voters (which would exclude the
> young, non-citizens, felons unable to vote)?  In 1966, in the earliest days
> of the reapportionment revolution, the Court did hold that states could
> choose between equalizing population or eligible voters (*Burns v.
> Richardson, *384 U.S. 73 (1966)).  But a lot has happened in the
> maturation of the law in the ensuing 50 years; in general, the Court has
> placed greater emphasis on the use of more concrete, precise standards.
>
> Moreover, there is something odd about such a basic constitutional
> standard under the Equal Protection Clause as the principle of political
> equality that’s reflected in the “one person, one vote” standard being so
> ill-defined that states are free to choose whether it’s persons or voters
> that matter for purposes of equality.  Few constitutional standards work
> that way.  In practice, most states have used residents, not voters, for
> the baseline, but the doctrine leaves open the possibility that states
> could use other baselines.  And as long as the baseline remains
> constitutionally undefined, states can manipulate the districting system by
> choosing one baseline over another in order to achieve various partisan or
> political ends.  The difference can be significant, especially in areas of
> the country — such as Texas, where this case comes from — with large
> numbers of non-citizen residents.
>
> In addition, since *Burns*, we have had the emergence of the Voting
> Rights Act requirements concerning how districts must be designed to avoid
> diluting the vote of particular minority groups.  To ensure political
> equality in this arena, the baseline for drawing districts has been voters
> — not residents.  Thus, to decide whether a district provides an “equality
> opportunity to elect” for minority voters, the courts do not look at the
> total number of minority residents — they look to the total number of
> voting-age eligible residents.  So there is at least some superficial
> tension between the VRA, where voters are the baseline, and the Equal
> Protection standard, where most states use population as the baseline.
> That provides another reason the Court might want to clarify what the right
> baseline is under the Equal Protection Clause.
>
> Now that the issue is squarely before the Court, my view is that the Court
> ought to adopt a clear, uniform standard to end uncertainty and potential
> manipulation regarding what counts as the baseline for the requirement of
> equality between election districts.  Once the Court confronts the
> arguments on that question, I tend to think the Court will conclude that
> the best answer is one person, one vote — that it is the requirement of
> equal numbers of residents (not voters) per district that is critical for
> constitutional purposes.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> Richard H. Pildes
>
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
>
> NYU School of Law
>
> 40 Washington Square South, NY, NY 10012
>
> 212 998-6377
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Samuel Bagenstos
>
> sbagen at gmail.com
>
> Twitter: @sbagen
>
> My University of Michigan homepage:
> http://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=sambagen
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Law-election mailing list
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Samuel Bagenstos
sbagen at gmail.com
Twitter: @sbagen
My University of Michigan homepage:
http://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=sambagen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150526/1a0a9ebe/attachment.html>