The Modern Understanding of ‘One Person, One Vote’ Is Under Threat at the Supreme Court

So glad the US is a champion of democracy.

The Modern Understanding of ‘One Person, One Vote’ Is Under Threat at the Supreme Court

Interesting.

Quote :

...they are asking that the states be required — or at least allowed — to use eligible voters, not total population, as the standard for creating equal districts for the U.S. House and State Legislatures. If Evenwel v. Abbott goes their way, it would mean a major reduction of voting representation for minority Americans as children, non-citizens, and incarcerated felons became non-people when it came to determining district lines. It would not only violate one person, one vote as we understand it today, but the principle at the heart of the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution that representation should be based on those with rights yet to be fully vindicated, not just those holding power.

However I'm not sure allowing districting according to eligible voters rather than population is necessarily a wrong idea -- illegal immigrants have been notoriously hard to census every ten years, and they don't vote.  Children and felons cannot vote in our present system.  Does providing them with "representation" (really, just a head count for districting) really accomplish anything?  They're effectively shut out of the system already.  And using them as head count for districting dilutes the power of the districting, since they're effectively silent citizens.

OTOH, in a poor district with a lot of unregistered voters, if an organizer got masses of people to register, their power of the vote would give them a lot of strength in a small district. That would give them MORE power than a strict head-count districting.

The article writer Ed Kilgore has his shorts all in a knot over this but it kinda sounds like a non-issue to me.  Somebody explain to me why it matters.

Redistricting lasts for ten years. Some portion of those children and incarcerated felons will be eligible voters long before the next redistricting. And does "eligible" mean "already registered"? That would be laughable.

I believe it does.

And this might actually motivate "get out the vote" efforts in small districts with lots of unregistered voters, since the new voters would have disproportionate influence.

The Supreme Court Looks Poised To Blow Up Everything You Think You Know About Redistricting

Quote :

Evenwel is the godchild of Edward Blum, a conservative activist who has also spearheaded challenges to affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. Like other cases shepherded by Blum, Evenwel also has a racial angle. Texas, in particular, has large number of non-citizen Latino residents. If Consovoy and Blum’s case prevails, these residents will no longer be counted when the state draws legislative districts. They will, however, still be counted when congressional seats are allocated to Texas. The result will be an effective shift in power from Latino voters to white voters.