Law Professor Rick Pildes has this article at Scotusblog about the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court hearing in Evenwel v Abbott, 14-940. The Court will hear this case late in 2015 or early in 2016. Texas, like almost all states, bases redistricting on population, not the number of voters. States are free to decide which standard to use.
The Texas individuals who brought the case believe that the U.S. Constitution requires that redistricting create districts of equal numbers of voters, not equal numbers of residents. Pildes thinks it is somewhat likely that the lawsuit will boomerang on the people who brought the lawsuit, and that the outcome might be that the Supreme Court says districting must be based on residents, not number of voters. Of course the Court is also free to maintain the status quo, in which any state can choose either method. Thanks to Election Law Blog for the link.
Professor Pildes is correct, I think. My bet is that Court will simply leave it to discretion of state at this point as it did in Burns.
Attention all political science MORONS —
Electors Vote — NOT non-Electors — children, felons, aliens (legal and illegal invaders), etc.
If there is a statewide election, then the results are NOT compiled gerrymander district by district.
See Gray v Saunders 1963 — just befoe the SCOTUS MORONS messed up gerrymander election math.
—
Gerrymander cases are REALLY about violations of the Republican Form of Govt language in Art. IV, Sec. 4 —
NO evil rotten ANTI-Democracy minority rule monarchy and oligarchy regimes allowed in the U.S.A.
AREA representation stuff is DARK AGE stuff due to the formation of the English House of Commons in the DARK AGE 1200s — then *progressive* — now SUPER-dangerous pack/crack minority rule gerrymanders in all 50 States.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Pildes favors a particular outcome, and is making arguments that would cause the SCOTUS to come to that result. That is, the legal principles are derived from the desired result.
If instead the SCOTUS presides from fundamental principles as Judge Kozinski did in Garza, they will find for the plaintiffs.
The underlying principle in the OMOV decision was that when a voter casts a vote for a statewide office such as governor, it should not have a different weight than when cast for a legislator.
The usual suspect communist profs love having illegal invaders and other non-electors being counted in the gerrymander districts —
i.e. to have lower number of Electors electing the communist legislators in such districts —
to get communist gerrymander majorities in the legislative bodies involved.
Lots more steps on the long road since 1776 to Civil WAR II.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Professor Rick Hasen has this interesting piece supporting Professor Pildes:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/07/symposium-ideology-partisanship-and-the-new-one-person-one-vote-case/#more-230607
I suspect Texas will win 8 to 1, or maybe 7 to 2.
If Pildes is right, does that mean that proportional representation violates an equal protection right to representational equality?
To get to an 8:1 decision, won’t the SCOTUS have to forcefully affirm that the representational basis is totally discretionary? Or will the four liberals concur in the result, but dissent on the reasoning?
If the court finds the base is discretionary, may a state deliberately choose to apply the population base in a way that maximizes voter inequality? May the USDOJ impose such a standard?
It is telling that Hasen thinks that conservatives should be opposed on the basis of principle, and liberal should be opposed on the basis of result.
If there were a right to vote, would the SCOTUS be forced to come to a different conclusion.
Hawaii mainly excludes adult citizens with the right to vote, on the basis that they lawfully do not pay Hawaii income taxes. Is this in effect a poll tax? While they can vote, they may be placed in malapportioned districts based on whether they pay taxes.