The concept of “one person, one vote” is so deeply ingrained in American thinking that most people may suspect it goes back the nation’s founding. But when it comes to state legislatures, one person, one vote hails from the early 1960s, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could no longer give the same representation to legislative districts with vastly unequal populations.
By demanding districts have roughly equal populations, the court rightly overturned the tight grip that rural districts held over many legislatures, even in heavily urbanized states.
Earlier this month the Supreme Court heard a case, Evenwel vs. Abbott, that seeks to revolutionize once again how legislative and municipal districts are drawn. The plaintiffs argue that some districts in states like Texas have so many non-citizen residents that actual voters in those districts enjoy far more electoral clout than voters elsewhere. They are asking the court to require states to draw districts that contain equal numbers of eligible voters instead of equal numbers of people.
The court should reject the argument and stick with equal population for state and municipal districts. For openers, the Constitution requires congressional seats to reflect total population, not eligible voters. And as Justice Elena Kagan understandably wondered during oral arguments, how could the Constitution require “something with respect to one apportionment that it prohibits with respect to another?”
Moreover, voters aren’t the only people affected by legislative actions, or the only people with a right to voice their opinion on public policy.
Finally, lists of eligible voters tend to be unreliable and their official use to draw districts will generate yet another source of litigation.
Granted, it may seem unfair that a voter in a district with a large number of non-citizens has more influence in electing, say, a state senator than a voter in a neighboring district. But there is no cure for the problem that doesn’t create bigger ones.
And as Stanford law professor Nathaniel Persily points out, even “the clause in the 14th Amendment upon which [plaintiffs] hang their argument prevents depriving any ‘person’ — not eligible voter or citizen — of ‘equal protection of the laws.’ “
Equal population for legislative districts is well-settled practice. Let’s keep it.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
