“Evenwel v. Abbott: Who Will Count in Our Democracy?”

Janai Nelson at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights:

Nothing is sacred in politics; but certain things should be sacred in a democracy. The Supreme Court argument in Evenwel v. Abbott this past Wednesday proved that not even the well-worn principle of one person-one vote established half a century ago is beyond scrutiny and manipulation. What Evenwel (pronounced “even-well”) seeks to advance is an uneven allocation of power that will not serve our nation well. The case challenges the fundamental assumption that all people count in our representative democracy, not just persons eligible to vote. If successful, the case would upend the national practice of counting all persons for purposes of drawing state legislative districts and eviscerate the principle of equal representation.

Evenwel is the most recent broad attack on well-settled democratic principles before the Court. Following the Shelby County v. Holder decision, which disabled a key prophylactic provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that warded off racial discrimination in voting,Evenwel seeks to add more tumult to the inherently fraught process of redistricting and depart from longstanding precedent and practice. As an ancillary matter, Evenwel also seeks to sow confusion and doubt concerning Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, whose vitality has only become more necessary since Shelby. For that reason alone, Evenwel may be one of the most portentous cases of the term.

 

Share this: