“When Not All Votes Were Equal The U.S. Supreme Court reconsiders how legislative districts are drawn—and risks sending the country back to a time before ‘one person, one vote.'”

J. Douglas Smith, author of On Democracy’s Doorstep: The Inside Story of How the Supreme Court Brought ‘One Person, One Vote’ to the United States,  has written this piece on Evenwel in the Altantic.  He concludes:

Until the Supreme Court sits for oral arguments and issues an opinion in the Texas case now on its calendar, it is difficult to discern the justices’ motives for weighing the meaning of “one person, one vote.” Even if the Court decides that voters are a more appropriate measure than persons, it is not clear which voters would count. Eligible voters? Registered voters? Or actual voters? Given the appallingly low voter turnout in the United States, such a ruling could lead us back to a time when a relatively small number of American citizens enjoyed disproportionate political power. Given the Supreme Court’s recent assault on the Voting Rights Act and the commitment of the majority to neutering its great accomplishments, it is troubling to contemplate the Court’s motives. A decision in favor of the challengers indeed has the potential to threaten many of the gains that resulted from the reapportionment revolution of the 1960s.

Share this: