"One Person, One Vote" Battle Just Starting

Three scholars scrutinize Evenwel v. Abbott, a Supreme Court ruling with broad implications for both the future of voting rights and the direction of the Court.

by

In its Evenwel v. Abbott ruling this month, the Supreme Court rejected a conservative voting-rights challenge that could have triggered partisan redistricting fights nationwide. Advocates of "one person, one vote" cheered, but the ruling may invite further challenges, and spotlights problematic originalist impulses on the Court. Carl Klarner and Daniel Smith examine Evenwel's legal impact, and Scott Lemieux tackles what Justice Clarence Thomas's originalism means for the ruling and for the Court.

DANIEL A. SMITH & CARL KLARNER

The Battle Over "One Person, One Vote," Has Just Begun

After the Supreme Court's politically consequential decision in Evenwel v. Abbott this month, supporters of the principle of "one-person, one vote" breathed a sigh of relief. The Court unanimously ruled that states may continue to draw legislative districts based on total population, instead of on a new standard-the number of registered or eligible voters-that would have excluded non-citizen immigrants, youth under 18, people who are or were incarcerated, and anyone else not registered to vote.

The ruling stymied a challenge brought by conservative activists in Texas who set out to upend the practice of apportioning legislative districts based on population, which had been settled law for five decades. A ruling in the challengers' favor could have triggered mass redrawing of legislative district lines around the country, most likely to the advantage of Republicans. Read More.

SCOTT LEMIEUX

The Limits of Originalism

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently issued two rather remarkable opinions that challenge landmark rulings of the liberal Warren Court, one directly and the other implicitly. The solo opinions-one on voting rights, the other on the right to criminal representation-may not portend major changes in the law for the immediate future. But together, the two opinions display the unworkability of Thomas's influential brand of originalism, and they also show how radical an agenda a Supreme Court controlled by contemporary Republicans could pursue.

Having blocked any consideration of Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's choice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, Republicans on Capitol Hill have signaled their determination to ensure continued conservative dominance on the Court. On the Supreme Court, "conservative" is often associated with "originalism"- the idea that the constitutional provisions should be interpreted based on their meaning when they were ratified. Thomas is the most prominent advocate of this approach. As his recent opinions illustrate, originalism has a way of subverting the constitutional principles it purports to uphold. Read More.

A second Trump administration will cement a right-wing majority on the Supreme Court for a generation, and put our collective future in the hands of someone who will be virtually unchecked by our institutions. The country has shifted rightward, and the reverberations will ensue for potentially the next few decades. In this climate, a robust independent media ecosystem will be more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on how Trump's agenda will actually affect the American people, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in this country.

Quality journalism is expensive to produce, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund what we do. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make our work possible. Any amount you give today will help us continue reporting on what matters to our democracy.

You can help power this newsroom by making a one-time donation or by becoming a member today.