Supreme Court ‘One Person, One Vote” Decision Will Have Important Long-Term Consequences

By Joe Guzzardi
December 9, 2015

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments over the constitutionality of the “one person, one vote” rule. Currently, all residents in an electoral district are counted including illegal immigrants, felons and non-voting age children. The U.S. Census Bureau data, collected every decade, determines the numbers of residents in a specific district, and its findings are used to divide up Congress’ 435 federal districts. Under the current method, not all electoral districts contain an equal number of voters

In the Evenwell v. Abbott case, two Texans including a Republican county chairwoman contend that one person, one vote should be limited to eligible voters which could reduce representation in areas that have large illegal immigration populations. Including all residents, critics claim, results in vote dilution, and therefore penalizes citizens.

Status quo supporters, however, maintain that if only eligible voters are in the count, minorities might not be fully represented, and more legislative power would fall into the hands of conservative Republican strongholds and away from more liberal Hispanic communities. Because illegal immigrants tend to settle in urban areas, eliminating them from the tally would potentially help Republicans and hurt Democrats. Should eligible voters become the new standard, most states might have to redraw their lines, as would cities and school boards

Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller, who will also be in the spotlight should the Supreme Court decide to hear Texas’ challenge to President Obama deferred action for parents of citizens and lawful permanent residents, the so called DAPA program, was insistent. Outside the Supreme Court after arguing his case, Keller said that Texas does not “engage in discrimination” and, referring to the state’s minorities, “Texans are not being denied fair representation.” Keller added that it should be left to individual states who to count.

But G. Eric Brunstad wrote in his friend of the court brief that the current case “involves a thoroughly settled question.” Brunstad, on behalf of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under the Law, referred to the 1964 Reynolds vs. Sims wherein then- Chief Justice Earl Warren treated total population and eligible citizen voters as interchangeable terms. Subsequent lower court and state rulings have consistently relied on the Supreme Court’s total population apportionment sanctioning.

Although a decision isn’t anticipated until June, the Supreme Court’s five Republican appointees and the four Democratic appointees gave clues about their individual concerns. As the New York Times reported, Chief Justice John Roberts indicated he leaned toward counting only voters when he said “It is called ‘one person, one vote.’ That seems designed to protect voters.”

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there were other interests at stake, meaning that politicians should represent all their constituents, not just voters “There is a voting interest,” Sotomayor said, “but there is also a representation interest.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized Sotomayor’s objection when she noted that women were counted when districts were drawn long before 1920 when they gained voting rights.

Without question, the nation’s demographic makeup is vastly different than the mid-1960s. An estimated 12 million illegal immigrants reside in the U.S. Moreover, legal and illegal immigrants plus their children will be responsible for, according to the Pew Hispanic Center’s analysis, 90 percent of the nation’s population growth through 2060 when America will have 460 million people, up 34 percent from today and 59 percent from the first Earth Day held in 1970.

In its final decision, the Court should also consider that allowing non-citizens to influence election results not only dilutes citizens’ votes but also what it means to be an American.