Court examines ‘one person, one vote’

Immigration, voting rights and race.

All of these elements are present in a challenge to the Texas Legislature’s plan for state Senate districts that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the session that began Monday.

At issue in Evenwel v. Abbott is the practical meaning of the “one person, one vote” principle.

That sounds simple enough. After all, the 14th Amendment guarantees equal representation.

Unfortunately, it’s not simple — at least not according to the appellants, Sue Evenwel of Titus County and Senate District 1, and Edward Pfenninger of Montgomery County and District 4.

Most state legislatures, Texas included, draw voting districts based on total population. That means some districts inevitably consist of areas with large populations of non-voters, like children, undocumented immigrants and legal non-citizen immigrants.

Districts can vary from each other in total population by less than 10 percent.

But “citizen voting-age population,” or CVAP, is another story. That variation can be as high as 50 percent for some areas.

And there’s the rub, say the challengers.

Evenwel and Pfenninger represent rural districts with larger numbers of eligible voters, particularly when compared to their urban counterparts.

They claim districts with large populations of non-eligible voters effectively dilute their votes and those of eligible voters in all districts with disproportionately large voting populations.

The appellants are not asking that states be forbidden from using total population as a districting measure. But when that results in the disparity they describe, they argue for other measures, such as CVAP.

Critics point out that using CVAP to redraw districts tends to produce districts that favor Republican candidates — whiter, older and wealthier.

Texas argues that the Legislature, not the courts, should determine how districting decisions are made.

Districting cases frequently make it to the high court, but the Supremes have never before been called on to clearly determine the meaning of the “one person, one vote” principle.

Since every vote is supposed to carry equal weight, perhaps it’s time they do.

This story was originally published October 9, 2015 at 6:43 PM with the headline "Court examines ‘one person, one vote’."