REAPPORTIONMENT

Evenwel, et al. v. Abbott, et al.

Issues

Does the “one-person, one-vote” principle of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause permit states  to draw  their legislative districts on the basis of total population, or does it require States to use voter population?

 

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide the Fourteenth Amendment’s “one-person, one-vote” principle requires states to apportion eligible voters equally across districts. See Reply Brief for Appellants, Sue Evenwel et al. at 2. The Texas Constitution requires that the State legislature reapportion its legislative districts after each federal decennial census. See Evenwel et al. v. Perry et al., 14-CV-335-LY-CH-MHS, at 2 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2014). In 2013, Texas adopted a new redistricting plan (“Plan S172”). See id. at 2. Texas drew its senatorial districts based only on total population. See id. at 2–3. Sue Evenwel is a registered Texas voter. See id. at 2. Evenwel argues that the one-person,  one-vote  principle requires states to divide their districts so that they each comprise a substantially equal number of eligible voters. See Brief for Appellants, Sue Evenwel et al. at 19. Texas Governor Greg Abbott contends that the Constitution does not require states to utilize any specific measure, and thus they are free to equalize districts on the basis of total population. See Brief for Appellees, Greg Abbott et al. at 43–44. The Court’s decision could affect the voting power of eligible voters, and the method and amount of data collection states must engage in to constitutionally apportion voting districts.  

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Did the three-judge district court correctly hold that the “one-person, one-vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter  population,  when apportioning state legislative districts?

After each federal decennial census, the Texas Constitution requires that the State legislature reapportion its legislative districts. See Evenwel et al. v. Perry et al., 14-CV-335-LY-CH-MHS, at 2 (W.D. Tex. Nov.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Harris, et al. v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Issues

  • Does Arizona’s redistricting plan violate the one-person, one-vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by creating unequally populated legislative districts?
  • If so, must Arizona explain the deviation between districts; and, are satisfying partisan political objections or achieving preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act permissible rationales?

 

The Supreme Court will decide whether Arizona’s redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by diluting the voting power of its residents. The Court will also consider whether Arizona must justify deviations in population between districts, and what kind of justification Arizona may properly raise. In 2000, Arizona voters approved a ballot initiative creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (the “Commission”), entrusted with redrawing the state’s legislative and congressional districts for future elections. See Harris v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1050 (D. Ariz., 2014). In 2011–2012, the Commission created a new legislative map, which caused population deviation between districts. On April 27,  2012  appellant Wesley W. Harris and others brought suit against the Commission in District Court for the District of Arizona, challenging the new legislative map. See Harris, 993 F. Supp. 2d at 1046. Harris argues that the Commission violates the one-person, one-vote principle of Equal Protection Clause by drawing unequal districts that dilute the voting power of citizens depending on where they live. See Brief for Appellants, Wesley W. Harris, et al. at 50. According to Harris, neither advancing partisan goals nor obtaining preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act are legitimate reasons to draw voting districts of unequal population. See id. at 25-26, 36. The Commission contends that where the difference between the most densely and least densely populated districts is less than 10 percent, the Commission does not need to justify why those districts were not drawn to be precisely equal. See Brief for Appellee, Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n at 29-34. Moreover, the Commission argues that the deviations in  population  were the result of a good-faith effort to satisfy section 5 preclearance. See id. at 38–40. The Court’s decision will affect redistricting plans  nationwide,  and could impact the way in which states consider race or ethnicity in the redistricting process.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Does the desire to gain partisan advantage for one political party justify intentionally creating over- populated legislative districts that result in tens of thousands of individual voters being denied Equal Protection because their individual votes are devalued, violating the one-person, one-vote principle?
  2. Does the desire to obtain favorable preclearance review by the Justice Department permit the creation of legislative districts that deviate from the one-person, one-vote principle? And, even if creating unequal districts to obtain preclearance approval was once justified, is this still a legitimate justification after Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013)?

In 2000, Arizona voters approved a ballot initiative creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, entrusted with redrawing the state’s legislative and congressional districts for future elections. See Harris v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 993 F. Supp.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to REAPPORTIONMENT