In Texas Case, Supreme Court Upholds One Person, One Vote
*This is the case that was brought by conservative GOP partisans in Texas who wanted to change the way congressional districts are drawn. They wanted the lines to reflect voters and not population in general – the way it is now and always has been. The gripe was that counting voters and non-voters alike increases the power of voters in districts with a high number of persons who can’t vote – children, non-citizens. In other words, kids and non-citizens don’t vote, so they shouldn’t count. The Supreme Court said a unanimous no. VL
By Jordan Rudner, The Texas Tribune
In a unanimous decision released Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to uphold Texas’ current system for drawing legislative districts so that they are roughly equal in population.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for legislators — mostly Democrats — who represent districts with significant populations of people who are not eligible to vote: primarily children and non-U.S. citizens.
Last year, two Texas voters, Sue Evenwel of Mount Pleasant and Edward Pfenninger of Montgomery County north of Houston, brought a case to the Supreme Court arguing that Texas should divide its districts by the number of eligible voters, not by the total population. Evenwel and Pfenninger argued that the power of Pfenninger’s vote was comparatively diminished because
he had a greater proportion of non-voters in his districts.
The court pointed out that the difference in population between the biggest and smallest state Senate districts in Texas was less than 10 percent, while the difference between the eligible voters in the biggest and smallest districts was 40 percent. Evenwel argued that the disparity is untenable.
The justices did not say it would be unconstitutional to base district sizes on eligible voter populations, but said Texas’ method of dividing legislative districts by overall population is clearly the standard.
Read more NewsTaco stories on Facbook. >>
Although the 8–0 judgment was unanimous in Texas’ favor, the Court offered three separate justifications – the majority opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by five other justices, as well as two concurring opinions written by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito.
In the ruling, Ginsburg focused heavily on U.S. history and longstanding practices allowing states to divide districts by total population.
“What constitutional history and our prior decisions strongly suggest, settled practice confirms,” Ginsburg wrote. “Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries.”
The opinion went as far back as to quote founding father Alexander Hamilton: “There can be no truer principle than this – that every individual of the community at large has an equal right to the protection of government,” it read.
The case brought together dozens of state legislators who signed on to briefs arguing in Texas’ favor. Members of the House of Representatives’ Mexican American Legislative Caucus and the Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus argued that the legal challenge represented a direct attack on their constituents, many of whom are ineligible to vote because they do not hold citizenship status. In order to accommodate thousands of additional eligible voters necessary to achieve district parity under Evenwel and Pfenninger’s plan, their districts would soar in size so much that their ability to represent their constituents effectively would be diminished, they said.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that argument in the majority ruling.
“As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote,” Ginsburg wrote. “Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates — children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public education — and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies.”
“By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation,” the ruling concluded.
This article was originally published in The Texas Tribune.
Jordan Rudner is a reporting fellow for The Texas Tribune and a Plan II and history senior at the University of Texas at Austin. Jordan previously interned at KUT News and the Supreme Court of the United States. She spent five semesters in the dimly lit basement offices of The Daily Texan, including one semester serving as managing editor.
[Photo courtesy of Matt WadeFlickir]Suggested reading
Chicano! The History of the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement is the most comprehensive account of the arduous struggle by Mexican Americans to secure and protect their civil rights. It is also a companion volume to the critically acclaimed, four-part documentary series of the same title. This volume is a testament to the Mexican American community’s hard-fought battle for social and legal equality as well as political and cultural identity.
Since the United States-Mexico War in 1846-1848, Mexican Americans have striven to achieve full rights as citizens. From peaceful resistance and violent demonstrations, when their rights were ignored or abused, to the establishment of support organizations to carry on the struggle and the formation of labor unions to provide a united voice, the movement grew in strength and numbers. However, it was during the 1960s and 1970s that the campaign exploded into a nationwide groundswell of Mexican Americans laying claim, once and for all, to their civil rights and asserting their cultural heritage. They took a name that had been used disparagingly against them for years—Chicano—and fashioned it into a battle cry, a term of pride, affirmation and struggle.
[cc_product sku=”978-1-55885-201-3″ display=”inline” quantity=”true” price=”true”]
