Evenwel v. Abbott
From Ballotpedia
|
| Redistricting |
|---|
| State-by-state redistricting procedures |
| Majority-minority districts |
| Congressional district demographics |
| United States census, 2020 |
|
Evenwel v. Abbott is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts. Total population counts have typically been used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as illegal immigrants, prisoners and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. Oral arguments took place on December 8, 2015.[1][2][3][4]
HIGHLIGHTS
- Transcript of oral argument: SupremeCourt.gov, Evenwel v. Abbott
- Text of the decision: SupremeCourt.gov, Evenwel v. Abbott Opinion'
Background
Evenwel and Pfenninger were represented by the Project on Fair Representation, a self-described "not-for-profit legal defense fund program that is designed to support litigation that challenges racial and ethnic classifications and preferences in state and federal courts." Evenwel v. Abbot was first brought before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, which dismissed it in November 2014. The district court noted that "the Supreme Court has generally used total population as the metric of comparison."[1][2][3][4][10]
In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds v. Sims that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races."[1][2][4]
Lepak v. City of Irving
In 2007, Manuel A. Benavidez, a Hispanic citizen of Texas, filed suit against the city of Irving, arguing that the at-large electoral system violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. According to the United States Census Bureau, Hispanics comprised approximately 41 percent of Irving’s total population as of 2010. However, Benavidez alleged that because the city had substantially more white registered voters than Hispanic registered voters, Hispanic votes were diluted and they were unable to elect representatives of their choice under the at-large system. In an at-large electoral system, representatives are elected by an entire jurisdiction, such as an entire city or state, rather than a division thereof.[11][12]
Benavidez proposed a new plan that would replace the at-large districts with six single-member districts, two at-large districts, and a single mayor, with one of the districts being majority Hispanic. The city objected that such districts would be unequal in total population, diluting the votes of eligible voters in other districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court rejected the city's one-person, one-vote plan, and granted judgment to Benavidez. The city chose not to appeal, and implemented a system similar to Benavidez's proposal. The resulting districts were roughly equal in terms of population, but there were disparities in the number of eligible voters between districts.[11][12][13]
In 2010, a group of citizens of Irving, Texas, filed suit against the city. They alleged that because there were unequal numbers of eligible voters among the districts, voters in districts with smaller concentrations of eligible voters were more powerful. This, the plaintiffs alleged, violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.[14][15]
The Texas Northern District Court found in favor of the city of Irving. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which also found in favor of the city. The plaintiffs again appealed in 2012 to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case on April 1, 2013, leaving the appeals court decision as precedent.[15][16]
Decision
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who penned the majority opinion in Evenwel v. Abbott
On April 4, 2016, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes, thereby rejecting the plaintiffs' argument. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Concurring opinions were filed by Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.[7]
Ginsburg wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:[7]
| “ | What constitutional history and our prior decisions strongly suggest, settled practice confirms. Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries. Appellants have shown no reason for the court to disturb this longstanding use of total population. ... As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote. ... By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation.[17] | ” |
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Evenwel Abbott. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- Redistricting
- Redistricting in Texas
- Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
External links
Additional reading
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," April 18, 2024 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "ap" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "ap" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Supreme Court Brief, "Supreme Court Inadvertently Announces Argument Date in Voting Case," October 5, 2015
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court Inadvertently Announces Argument Date in Voting Case," October 5, 2015
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "Evenwel v. Abbott Opinion," April 4, 2016
- ↑ Supreme Court Brief, "Supreme Court Inadvertently Announces Argument Date in Voting Case," October 5, 2015
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court Inadvertently Announces Argument Date in Voting Case," October 5, 2015
- ↑ Project on Fair Representation, "About Us," accessed May 27, 2015
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 SCOTUSblog, “Lepak v. Irving, Texas: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari,” December 21, 2012
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 The Dallas Morning News, "BENAVIDEZ VS. IRVING ISD," November 26, 2010
- ↑ Casetext.com, "BENAVIDEZ v. IRVING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST," accessed July 10, 2015
- ↑ ABC News, "Immigrant-Heavy Areas Could Face a Loss in Political Representation," March 29, 2013
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 LA Times, "Supreme Court rejects call to change voting district head counts," April 01, 2013
- ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Lepak v. City of Irving," accessed July 8, 2015
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
