Kennedy suggests a middle ground in SCOTUS arguments on meaning of one-person, one-vote
Image from Shutterstock.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy appeared to be looking for a middle ground on Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether state legislative districts should be based on eligible voters or the overall population.
Justices appointed by Democrats appeared to favor counting everyone, while many justices appointed by Republicans saw merit to voter equality, the New York Times reports.
If districts are based on eligible voters, power would be shifted from urban to rural districts in states with large, urban immigrant populations that have greater numbers of children and noncitizens. That would generally favor Republican voters.
Kennedy didn’t see the need for an all-or-nothing approach, according to the Times and the National Law Journal (sub. req.), the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) and the Washington Post.
“You should at least give some consideration to this disparity you have among voters” in different voting districts, he said. “Why is one option exclusive of the other?” His point, according to the Washington Post, seemed to be that states using general population to draw districts could run into constitutional problems if there are large disparities among the eligible voting population.
Lawyer William Consovoy represented the two Texas plaintiffs who claim their votes are diluted by the state’s use of total population in voting districts.
The liberal justices attacked Consovoy’s arguments, while Kennedy and conservatives didn’t ask Consovoy a single question. According to the National Law Journal, that may have shown their agreement; studies have found justices tend to ask fewer questions of the lawyers whose side they support.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed to a practical problem if states draw districts based on eligible voters. The census provides reliable data for legislative line drawing, but there are no comparable statistics on eligible voters.
The case is Evenwel v. Abbott. Justices also heard arguments in a second voting case challenging Arizona’s redrawn legislative districts, which were created by an independent redistricting commission. Republican voters claim the districts grouped too many Republicans into conservative districts. The case is Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
Related articles:
ABAJournal.com: “Chemerinsky: 2 Texas cases before SCOTUS could have big implications for race in the US”
ABA Journal: “Redistricting case brings partisan politics, immigration and federalism before SCOTUS”
ABAJournal.com: “Should ineligible voters be counted in district remap? SCOTUS to consider ‘one man, one vote’ “
