“Evenwel v. Abbott: What Does One Person, One Vote Really Mean?”

Andrew Grossman has written this report for the Heritage Foundation. Here is a summary:

The greatest hope of those committed to the one-person, one-vote status quo seems to be that in decidingEvenwel v. Abbott, the Supreme Court will simply leave it alone if they raise enough random objections. Infused in that view is a great deal of dismissiveness about the merits of the Evenwel litigation and a great deal of angst over its potential political effects. If the Court is true to its precedents, it will act to enforce Sue Evenwel’s and Edward Pfenninger’s right to cast votes of the same weight as those of their fellow Texans. If it does not do that, its decision will mark a real break in the law of OPOV and, as a practical matter, could even spell the beginning of the end of the doctrine. That is the choice the Court faces.

Don’t miss text accompanying n. 31, in which I’m accused of trolling.

Share this: