Evenwel v. Abbott (Amicus Brief)
On April 4, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the longstanding practice of drawing legislative districts on the basis of total population.
On April 4, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the longstanding practice of drawing legislative districts on the basis of total population. Justice Ginsburg’s opinion upholding the one-person, one-vote principle is a big win for fair representation and helps guard against efforts to manipulate voting rules.
Case Background
States have typically been given the authority to decide how to count their population for redistricting purposes. And at present, every jurisdiction in the country draws districts using some form of total population, meaning that the goal for mapdrawers is simply to make sure that districts contain the same total number of people. Under this system, it does not matter when calculating the target population for each district whether someone is a citizen or non-citizen, under the age of 18, or otherwise eligible to vote – a person is a person.
A group of Texas residents challenged this longstanding practice, however, with respect to Texas’ state senate districts, contending that in places like Texas that have large numbers of non-citizens, calculating the number of people in each district based on total population causes some districts to have many more actual voters than others. They said this practice violates the Constitution’s one-person, one-vote principle and that jurisdictions should be required to draw districts on the basis of citizen population over the age of 18, or some equivalent measure.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas rejected the challenge on November 5, 2014, holding that the plaintiffs failed to show that the state’s use of total population violated their rights under the Equal Protections Clause.
If the Supreme Court had reversed the district court, the change could have dramatically impacted minority representation where the population contains large numbers of non-citizens or people under 18. Some observers, for example, pointed out that it could have made it much more difficult to draw majority-minority districts if states were required to draw districts based on citizen voting population. They also noted that, in addition to removing non-citizens, such a rule would exclude children and citizens who are simply not registered to vote. This exclusion, advocates for using total population argued, would be improper because children and non-citizen permanent residents still require constituent services from their elected officials and, as a result, excluding them would dilute their representation.
The district court opinion is available here. The transcript of the oral argument is available here and the audio is available here.
US Supreme Court Opinions
US Supreme Court Merits Briefs
US Supreme Court Amicus Briefs
In Support of Appellants
- American Civil Rights Union in Support of Appellants
- Cato Institute and Reason Foundation in Support of Appellants
- Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in Support of Appellants
- Demographers Peter A. Morrison, et al. in Support of Appellants
- Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund in Support of Appellants
- Immigration Reform Law Institute in Support of Appellants
- Judicial Watch, Inc., et al. in Support of Appellants
- Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Appellants
- Project 21 in Support of Appellants
- Tennessee State Legislators and the Judicial Education Project in Support of Appellants
- The City of Yakima, Washington in Support of Appellants
- Brennan Center for Justice in Support of Appellees
- United States in Support of Appellees
- 21 States in Support of Appellees
- American Civil Liberties Union in Support of Appellees
- Carl E. Heastie in His Official Capacity as Speaker of the New York State Assembly in Support of Appellees
- Children’s Defense Fund, et al. in Support of Appellees
- City of New York in Support of Appellees
- City and County of Los Angeles, et al. in Support of Appellees
- Common Cause in Support of Appellees
- Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Appellees
- Democratic National Committee in Support of Appellees
- Direct Action for Rights and Equality, et al. in Support of Appellees
- Former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau in Support of Appellees
- Harris County, Texas in Support of Appellees
- Hawaii Reapportionment Case Plaintiffs in Support of Appellees
- Hispanic National Bar Association, et al. in Support of Appellees
- Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Support of Appellees
- Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, et al. in Support of Appellees
- NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund in Support of Appellees
Earlier US Supreme Court Documents
Before Noting of Probable Jurisdiction
- Appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement
- Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss or Affirm
- Appellants’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or Affirm
- Supreme Court Order Noting Probable Jurisdiction
Amicus Briefs In Support of Appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement
- American Civil Rights Union in Support of Appellants
- Cato Institute and Reason Foundation in Support of Appellants
- Judicial Watch, Inc. and Allied Educational Foundation in Support of Appellants
- Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Appellants
- Southeastern Legal Foundation in Support of Appellants
- Tennessee State Legislators and the Judicial Education Project in Support of Appellants