Evenwel v. Abbott
578 U. S. ____ (2016) (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state or locality may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause's one-person, one-vote principle, draw its legislative districts based on total population.
Facts:
- Following the 2010 U.S. Census, the Texas Legislature adopted a new map for its State Senate districts.
- The legislature drew the districts based on equalizing the total population in each district, using census data.
- The resulting map, S172, had a maximum total-population deviation of 8.04% between the most and least populated districts.
- However, when measured by the number of eligible voters, the same map had a maximum deviation of over 40%.
- Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger were registered voters living in Texas Senate districts that had significantly larger populations of eligible voters compared to other districts.
- They believed this disparity diluted the weight of their votes compared to those of voters in districts with fewer eligible voters but a similar total population.
Procedural Posture:
- Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger filed a lawsuit against the Governor and Secretary of State of Texas in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
- The complaint sought a permanent injunction to prevent the use of the existing State Senate map, alleging it violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The case was referred to a three-judge District Court for a decision.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) filed a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's legislative redistricting plan, which equalizes districts based on total population, violate the Equal Protection Clause's one-person, one-vote principle because it results in substantial disparities in the number of eligible voters per district?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No, a state's legislative redistricting plan that equalizes districts based on total population does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Constitutional history, this Court's precedents, and longstanding practice establish that a state may draw its legislative districts based on total population. The Framers of both the original Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment chose total population as the basis for apportioning the U.S. House of Representatives, endorsing a principle of representational equality for all persons, not just voters. Past one-person, one-vote decisions, such as Reynolds v. Sims, consistently used total population to measure the equality of districts and spoke of 'equal representation for equal numbers of people.' Furthermore, all 50 states have historically used total population for apportionment, a practice which recognizes that representatives serve all residents in their districts—including non-voters like children and non-citizen immigrants—who all have a stake in policy and need constituent services. The Court does not decide whether a state is prohibited from using a voter-population base, only that it is constitutionally permitted to use a total-population base.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No, the Texas plan does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The entire one-person, one-vote doctrine lacks a sound basis in the Constitution, which does not prescribe any single basis for state-level apportionment. The Constitution's guarantee of a 'Republican Form of Government' leaves states significant leeway to choose their own districting principles, whether equalizing total population, eligible voters, or promoting other rational goals. This Court's precedents on the issue are inconsistent and have failed to provide a clear, principled rule. Since the Constitution does not mandate a specific apportionment method, and this Court’s precedents are unsettled, Texas’s choice to use total population is permissible.
Concurring - Justice Alito
No, Texas's use of total population is permissible and did not violate the one-person, one-vote rule. Practical considerations, such as the reliability of decennial census data, and the uniform practice of states since Reynolds support the permissibility of using total population. However, the majority's reliance on the constitutional history of congressional apportionment is a meretricious argument. The formulas for allocating House seats in both the original Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment were products of raw political power struggles—namely, the Three-Fifths Compromise and post-Civil War efforts to limit Southern power—not a coherent, abstract theory of representation. Because the federal system of representation itself (e.g., the Senate) violates the one-person, one-vote principle, it is an inapposite model for state districting schemes.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the constitutional legitimacy of the universal state practice of using total population for legislative districting, reaffirming the status quo against a novel challenge. The Court's holding prioritizes the principle of 'representational equality,' where elected officials serve all constituents, over 'voter equality,' which would focus solely on the voting power of eligible citizens. While the ruling makes it clear that states may use total population, it deliberately leaves open whether they must, thereby potentially allowing future state-led experiments with other metrics like voter population. The concurring opinions expose deep fissures among the justices regarding the historical and theoretical underpinnings of the entire one-person, one-vote doctrine.
