Skip Navigation
Court Case Tracker

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.

Published: April 4, 2016

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

In Support of Appellees

 

Earlier US Supreme Court Docu­ments

Before Noting of Prob­able Juris­dic­tion

Amicus Briefs In Support of Appel­lants’ Juris­dic­tional State­ment