Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Evenwel v. Abbott which addressed the long-recognized “one person, one vote” standard established in Reynolds v Sims, in which the SCOTUS held that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause includes a “one person, one vote” principle. This means that “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis of that will insure, as far as practicable, that equal number of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.” Hadley v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City, 397 U.S. 50, 56 (1970). Therefore, based on census data, legislative seats are determined by roughly equal district populations.
Texan conservatives Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger believe a more accurate application of the “one person, one vote” principle would include only eligible voters, basing their argument on their state’s drawing of their district to match the number of Houston residents. The city of Houston happens to contain a small percentage of eligible voters versus the total population of residents. This presents a problem for Evenwel and Pfenninger as they believe the needs of eligible voters get shafted when non-eligible voters have the greater balance in their district’s representative power. Eligible voters do not include felons, undocumented citizens, and children.
This causes us to question a fundamental aspect of democracy: should everyone be represented in elected governments or are those eligible to vote entitled to have their interests represented more? The notion of liberty itself is founded on the principle of equal representation and has been a fundament of the American belief system since the foundation of this country. Evenwel and Pfenninger’s views reflect the growing “fair representation” movement, which seeks to challenge “racial and ethnic classifications and preferences in state and federal courts.”
While the conservative justices stayed relatively quiet during the oral argument, the moderate justices were significantly more vocal while questioning William Consovoy (the attorney representing Evenwel and Pfenninger). Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor focused on the idea that the long-established principle of “one person, one vote” allows for an equalized representational voice. Justice Sotomayor pointed to the fact that we cannot simply ignore the interests of the total population over those of the eligible voters. “And it’s that which has led us to accept the total population bases, because states have to have some discretion to figure out who should have the representation voice.” When it comes to legislative districts, “the legislature is protecting not just voters. It’s protecting its citizens, or noncitizens. The people who live there.” (Evenwel v. Abbott argument transcript). Justice Elena Kagan raised a point about the constitutionality of favoring one group over the majority, stating that the purpose of the 14th Amendment is to protect everyone, not just those considered eligible voters. Additionally, Justice Stephen Breyer reiterated the need to have representation for those with less political power.
The repercussions of a ruling in their favor could have major implications. Not only could this shift the balance of power to older voters and voters in rural areas, but this would also most likely lead to a large political shift as those voters tend to have more conservative views and tend to vote for conservative candidates.