The Supreme Court has stricken one of the most unnerving and dishonest efforts to restrict voting rights: using eligible voters, not total population, for electoral districting. The opinion was written by Justice Ruth Ginsburg.Though they concurred in the judgment Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas grumbled, laying the basis for future attacks . . - gwc
Unanimous Supreme Court Preserves Principle Of One Person, One Vote
by Tierney Sneed // Talking Points Memo
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against challengers seeking to change the long-held interpretation of the principle of one person, one vote. Siding with a lower court, the 8-member high court held that total population could be used to draw electoral districts in Evenwell v. Abbot, Governor of Texas.
The decision for the case, Evenwel v. Abbott, was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas each filed concurring opinions.
"Appellants have shown no reason for the Court to disturb this longstanding use of total population," Ginsburg wrote.
The challengers had argued the use of total population -- which includes non-citizens, but also children and disenfranchise prisoners -- to draw districts was unconstitutional because it diluted the political power of eligible voters. Civil rights advocates argued that the lawsuit was an attempt to increase the political power of white suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Republican, at the cost of minority and urban communities, which have a larger share of non-eligible voters in their districts.
Unanimous Supreme Court Preserves Principle Of One Person, One Vote
by Tierney Sneed // Talking Points Memo
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against challengers seeking to change the long-held interpretation of the principle of one person, one vote. Siding with a lower court, the 8-member high court held that total population could be used to draw electoral districts in Evenwell v. Abbot, Governor of Texas.
The decision for the case, Evenwel v. Abbott, was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas each filed concurring opinions.
"Appellants have shown no reason for the Court to disturb this longstanding use of total population," Ginsburg wrote.
The challengers had argued the use of total population -- which includes non-citizens, but also children and disenfranchise prisoners -- to draw districts was unconstitutional because it diluted the political power of eligible voters. Civil rights advocates argued that the lawsuit was an attempt to increase the political power of white suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Republican, at the cost of minority and urban communities, which have a larger share of non-eligible voters in their districts.
No comments:
Post a Comment