On May 26, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear Evenwel v Abbott, 14-940, a Texas redistricting case involving the State Senate districts. The plaintiffs are voters who live in a rural State Senate district. They argue that the 14th amendment requires that redistricting be based on the number of potential voters, not the population.
The decision to hear this case is a surprise. In 1966 the U.S. Supreme Court had said Hawaii is free to base its redistricting on number of potential voters, not population. But the plaintiffs in Evenwel v Abbott argue that it is mandatory for states to use number of potential voters rather than population. If the plaintiffs win their case, probably every state’s redistricting plan would be upset.
It is likely that Justice Clarence Thomas was the force who persuaded the Court to hear Evenwel v Abbott. Earlier he had dissented from a denial of cert in a similar case. Here is a copy of the brief of the Texas government, submitted several weeks ago, explaining why the case should be rejected. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.
The plaintiffs are residents of two senate districts, SD-1 and SD-4. While SD-1 might be characterized as rural, it includes Tyler, Longview, and Texarkana, and numerous other smaller cities. SD-4 is definitely not rural. About 30% is in Jefferson County (Beaumont and Port Arthur), and the remainder in suburban Houston (Montgomery and Harris counties).
Before 2006, the Texas Constitution called for senate districts to be apportioned on the basis of “qualified voters”. This was removed as part of a general cleanup of the constitution, but it was likely that the drafters were mainly concerned with the provision that prevented division of counties by senate districts, which had been made obsolete by ‘Reynolds v Sims’.
When legislators performing redistricting were offered an explanation of the Texas Constitution, they were told that they could follow the constitution, but they would have to provide the basis for the apportionment. Logically, the Census should enumerate citizens over the age of 18, as well as whether their right is abridged. The fundamental purpose of the census is to apportion representatives among the States, as specified in the 14th Amendment (and presumably adjusted by the 19th and 26th amendments), and yet the census does not gather the necessary information to do so.
‘Reynolds v Sims’ states “Weighting votes differently according to where citizens happen to reside is discriminatory,”
‘Wesberry v Sims’ states “means that, as nearly as is practicable, one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.”
In Texas, there is about a 2:1 disparity in voter registration between the senate district with the largest voter registration, and that with the smallest registration.
It will be interesting to see how the justices crawfish on this one.
Here is a Los Angeles Times op-ed on the case.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-blum-one-person-vote-20150513-story.html
thank you for case
INSIDE each sovereign State the ELECTORS-Voters vote —
and N-O-T other folks — children, ILLEGAL invaders, etc.
Much too difficult for armies of New Age MORONS to understand.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.