Supreme Court to define meaning of ‘one person, one vote’

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on a voting rights case that could shift the way legislative districts are drawn, potentially upending voting power nationwide with a major boost for Republicans.

The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, is set to determine if legislative districts should be drawn based on the number of eligible voters only or all residents, including those who can’t vote such as children, those in the country illegally, inmates and ex-felons. Currently, most states draw legislative districts based on census data, which counts the total population. The Texas lawsuit, back by conservative groups, contends the so-called “one person-one vote” method, which dates back to the 1960s, is unconstitutional and disproportionately allocates state senators based on total population.

If the justices lean in favor of the Texas challengers, there could be a shift of power from urban areas, where non-eligible voters tend to live, to rural areas that are more likely to favor Republicans.

Lead plaintiff Sue Evenwel, a member of the Texas State Republican Executive Committee, backed by Edward Blum, the director of the Project on Fair Representation, say “one person, one vote” dilutes a single vote in more populated areas.

“From the beginning, the fundamental purpose of the one-person, one-vote principle has been to ensure that the states apportion districts in a way that protects the right of eligible voters to an equal vote,” Evenwel’s lawyers argued in court filings. “It necessarily follows that requiring the states to apportion approximately the same number of eligible voters to each district is the only way to enforce that constitutional right.”

The state of Texas, along with liberal groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union, argue everyone in the state should be counted.

“States are permitted to use total population when they reapportion, and they are also entitled to choose citizen or voting-eligible population,” state lawyers argued in court documents. “This choice does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.”