From the Washington Post’s new In Theory section, here is a snippet from my contribution today to the Symposium on Evenwel:

[A]s a matter of constitutional principle, states should have the discretion, at the least, to continue to decide that equal protection means ensuring equal representation for equal numbers of people. Two powerful ideas about voting and representation support this choice.

First, representatives have to address the realities created by all those who live in their districts, not just those eligible to vote. Non-citizens and the young in places like Los Angeles and Chicago inevitably impose burdens on government services — for law enforcement, schools and the provision of basic services such as water delivery or emergency medical care. Indeed, that is part of the reason immigration is a major political issue. If representatives do not have the political power necessary to advocate for the total number of people in their districts, their ability to meet their representative obligations is dramatically curtailed.

Second, even if we focus only on eligible voters, their voting power is also significantly diminished if those ineligible to vote are not “counted” when districts are designed. Not surprisingly, the distribution of public resources correlates with the distribution of political representation. Yet if your area and mine both have 50,000 eligible voters and we each can elect one representative, but my area has an additional 50,000 non-citizens or young people, my representative doesn’t have the same power to pursue law-enforcement resources to keep my area safe as yours does for your district. Similarly, my access to my representative is diminished if I have to compete with 100,000 others in the district, but you have to compete with only 50,000.

For my view that the deeper issue in the case is whether states should be constitutionally obligated to base districts on total population numbers, see here.