In my Slate piece on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Evenwel, which I wanted to title “Unsettling Precedents,” I argue that whether to use total population or total voters (or perhaps some other denominator) in redistricting to comply with… Continue reading
Joey Fishkin:
And so the question before the Court now is this: does a poor, urban, Latino kid, not yet 18, deserve to be able to say “this representative represents me. Not acres, trees, dollars, active voters, and so… Continue reading
“We don’t have a national list of citizens,” he said. The data cited in the Texas case come from a census survey of about 2% of households that counts citizens.
“If you are only counting 2% of the households, there… Continue reading
…will likely be an amicus brief by political scientists (probably supporting neither party) explaining how difficult and contentious it would be to put in practice a voters only measure of population for redistricting purposes.
Adam Liptak reports for the NYT:
In the new case, the Supreme Court may decide that states can determine for themselves which standard to use. Even such a ruling could have a major impact, Professor Pildes said.
“If the court… Continue reading
I have written this new piece for Slate. It begins:
For the second time in a year, the Supreme Court has agreed to wade into an election case at the urging of conservatives. In both cases it has done so… Continue reading
Zack Roth reports for MSNBC.
One interesting question is how any rule in Evenwel would match up with requirements of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.