On December 8, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Evenwel v Abbott, 14-940. Here is a summary of the argument from Scotusblog. The issue is whether legislative districts should have equal numbers of residents, or equal numbers of eligible voters. The tradition in the U.S. for the last 50 years has been equal numbers of residents, including children and adults not permitted to register to vote, such as aliens.
Here is the transcript of the oral argument. Thanks to Rick Hasen for that link.
General Docket
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Docket #: 15-3775Docketed: 12/07/2015
In re Natl. Born Citizen, etc
Appeal From: Not in 8th Circuit
Fee Status: paid – cs
Case Type Information:
1) Original Proceeding
2) Mandamus
3) null
Originating Court Information:
District: NIC-0 :
Date Rec’d COA:
12/02/2015
12/07/2015 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING case docketed. [4343516] [15-3775] (DMW)
12/07/2015Open DocumentPETITION for Writ of Mandamus, filed by Petitioner Natural Born Citizen Party National Committee; (Rec’d by MAIL) w/service by USCA8 on 12/07/2015 [4343526] [15-3775] (DMW)
12/07/2015Open DocumentMOTION to consolidate before judgment, filed by Petitioner Natural Born Citizen Party National Committee, et al; w/service by USCA8 on 12/07/2015. [4343535] [15-3775] (DMW)
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/674317248803307520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
In combination with Gary v. Sanders (in which William O. Douglas said, “The concept of political equality…can mean only one thing—one person, one vote”), it seems pretty straightforward to me. Sadly, the SC conservatives are very good at twisting words.
Brian J- you forgot the three-fifths part.
No I didn’t. The 14th Amendment supersedes it (the “whole number” clause in Section 2 replaces the three-fifth compromise).
The dissent in Wesberry v Sanders said that the SCOTUS was sweeping the issue under the rug.