Supreme Court to consider redefining 'one-person, one-vote' principle

Richard Wolf | USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to define what it meant by "one person, one vote" a half century ago.

The justices will consider a challenge brought by two rural voters in Texas who claim their state Senate ballots carry less weight than those cast in urban areas with large numbers of non-citizens ineligible to vote.

Under the current system in nearly all states, state legislative districts are drawn with roughly equal populations. The standard dates back to decisions made by the Supreme Court in the early 1960s.

If the justices change the standard from total population to legal voters, illegal and some legal immigrants would not be counted, along with children and most prisoners who have committed felonies. That would equalize the power of each vote but result in districts of unequal population.

It also would make it harder for Hispanics in ethnic areas to elect the candidate of their choice, because their voting strength would decline, or the districts would be less compact and subject to legal challenge. That could help Republicans in rural areas and hurt Democrats in cities.

States and localities most likely to feel the effect of any change include Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida and the New York metropolitan area. While only state legislative districts would be affected, a separate challenge could be filed to change the way congressional districts are drawn.

In the Texas case, Sue Evenwel's mostly rural district has about 584,000 citizens eligible to vote, while a neighboring urban district has only 372,000. As a result, voters in the urban district have more sway to influence the outcome.

A federal district court in Texas ruled that the state Legislature's use of total population could not be appealed. But as far back as 2001, at least one justice, Clarence Thomas, had said the issue should be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

"The one-person, one-vote principle, by its terms, entitles voters to an equal vote," the challengers said. "Unless the districting process no longer protects that right, the judgment below cannot stand."

The organization behind the challenge, the Project on Fair Representation, also was the source of other major Supreme Court cases challenging minority preferences. Among them: Fisher v. University of Texas, challenging the use of affirmative action policies in college admissions, and Shelby County, Ala., v. Holder, challenging a major section of the Voting Rights Act.

The challengers were backed by a half-dozen conservative and libertarian groups, an unusually large number for a case that had yet to be granted by the high court.

Texas responded that the justices had never required legislative districts to be drawn based on the number of voters, rather than total population. "Multiple precedents from this court confirm that total population is a permissible apportionment base under the Equal Protection Clause," the state said.

The case will be taken up during the court's next term, which begins in October.