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

Tue May 26 13:41:35 PDT 2015

I concentrate on CVAP rather than VAP, since age is asked on the census
short form, and could be computed without estimation. 

Some states use different population bases for congressional and state
legislative redistricting. Hawaii and Kansas exclude non-resident military
from their state legislative redistricting and Kansas excludes non-resident
students. A number of states make adjustments for felon populations from
their state legislative redistricting. 

Btw, more grist for the mill:

Here is Ted Poe (R-TX) touting his H.R. 2255, which would make participation
in the ACS voluntary:

http://www.texasgopvote.com/government/poe-make-american-community-survey-op
tional-007798

And a news story:

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cypresscreek/blogs/ted-poe-american-community
-survey-on-the-way-to-million/article_ea57b124-fb88-11e4-8fb3-4f6e0205d912.h
tml

In 1960, the Census Bureau did not ask a citizenship question on the then
Census long form, the precursor to the ACS. (This has been an annoyance to
me to construct historical VEP turnout rates.). It's not too hard to image
the citizenship question becoming a political football, like in 2001 when
the Bush administration refused to release a statistical adjustment to the
Census. The Supreme Court agreed on grounds that estimated data should not
be used for apportionment (but not redistricting) purposes in Department of
Commerce v. United States House of Representatives 525 U.S. 316 (1999). What
if a Democratic administration similarly simply refused to put citizenship
on the ACS questionnaire or release the data in a timely manner for
redistricting?

Justin Levitt and I also covered some of these issues regarding population
numbers in our 2007 Georgetown Law Review article "Taking the 'Re' Out of
Redistricting: State Constitutional Provisions on Redistricting Timing" 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=986081

============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor
University of Florida
Department of Political Science
223 Anderson Hall
P.O. Box 117325
Gainesville, FL 32611

phone:   352-273-2371 (office)
e-mail:  dr.michael.p.mcdonald at gmail.com                
web:      <http://www.electproject.org/> www.ElectProject.org 
twitter: @ElectProject

From: David Ely [mailto:ely at compass-demographics.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 4:21 PM
To: 'Michael McDonald'; 'Election Law'
Subject: RE: [EL] The Supreme Court's Decision to Decide Whether It's One
Person, One Vote or One Voter, One Vote

Everyone seems to be focusing on citizenship, but there are large
differences in VAP as well, because some communities have far more children
than others. 
A CVAP standard is a double hit on Latino communities, since they tend to
have larger numbers of kids, most of whom are citizens. If the court ends up
requiring something other than total population for districting, will they
resurrect the 3/5ths rule for apportionment and apply it to kids and
non-citizens?  How would it make any sense to have one population base for
apportionment of representatives to states and a separate one for
apportionment of districts within a state. Or to put it differently, how
could it be possibly be unconstitutional to use an apportionment standard
within a state that is explicitly required by the constitution for
representative apportionment between the states.

How is this case different than the Irving Texas case the court declined to
hear a couple of years ago? 

How many different precedents would have to be ignored for the court to
require anything other than a total population standard? (Allowing another
standard is a different matter, but that is not at issue in this case).

The only confusing language is in the court cases requiring equal sized
districts referring to equal numbers of voters. The equal protection clause
itself is quite clear: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws". 

I have to suspect that this is a case of the court conservatives lashing out
to protest the Same-Sex Marriage equal protection arguments.  

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Michael
McDonald
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 12:17 PM
To: 'Election Law'
Subject: Re: [EL] The Supreme Court's Decision to Decide Whether It's One
Person, One Vote or One Voter, One Vote

It is worthwhile to note that the citizenship does not come from the
ten-year enumeration of the population. It comes from the American Community
Survey, which is a survey, albeit a large one. The CVAP estimates would
likely come from the five-year aggregation of single-year surveys, so for
2021, CVAP might be the percentage citizens among the voting-age population
from the 2015-2010 surveys, projected onto the 2020 enumeration. Further
complicating issues is that the past ACS surveys would not be immediately
weighted to the 2020 census, which will cause further estimation errors. The
five year estimates are at the block group level, so one will have
difficulty obtaining precise CVAP estimates for small districts (NH's lower
chamber leaps to mind).  If the court wants bright lines, it will not find
them in these data. I can easily imagine a war of experts over how to
construct citizenship estimates.

The ACS has recently been under attack from Republicans in Congress, so it
entirely possible that at a future point in time there will be no ACS and no
citizenship estimates from it. The constitution only requires a census of
the population, not the survey products that produce interesting statistics
like citizenship. So, it strikes me that the court can't reasonably require
citizen voting-age population as a basis for apportionment since there is no
requirement in the constitution that the federal government collect the
information.

============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor
University of Florida
Department of Political Science
223 Anderson Hall
P.O. Box 117325
Gainesville, FL 32611

phone:   352-273-2371 (office)
e-mail:  dr.michael.p.mcdonald at gmail.com
<mailto:dr.michael.p.mcdonald at gmail.com>                 
web:      <http://www.electproject.org/> www.ElectProject.org 
twitter: @ElectProject
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150526/dd97baac/attachment.html>