High court considers Arizona redistricting challenge

While more than two-thirds of the state’s population live in incorporated areas, more than two-thirds of state legislators do not, he said.

Perhaps the greatest danger in this case stems not from the plaintiffs’ position but from Texas’s, which is that states and municipalities should have discretion whether to include or to ignore non-voters when drawing districts.

In a 2003 case called Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that a “narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest” in diversity did not violate the US Constitution.

The suit’s two plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, charge they have reduced clout as voters in their state Senate districts. Besides, they argue, since the maps were approved, the Voting Rights Act no longer figures prominently in redistricting considerations, based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. They are represented by the Project on Fair Representation, a small conservative advocacy group that has been active in cases concerning race and voting.

He said it’s legally irrelevant that the commission, in drawing the lines, did so with the intent of complying with the Voting Rights Act.

The question before the Court is if the one-person, one-vote doctrine requires a legislature to use voting population numbers when there is evidence that using total population numbers would cause serious disparities in the strength of the votes cast. While District 114 is also underpopulated, it could easily give up population to District 115 and still pick up the added population it needs by expanding south into territory that is part of the significantly overpopulated District 108.

The case to be argued before the court Tuesday turns on a simple concept that has lasted a half century: “One person, one vote”.

The outcome, in June 2013, concealed tense divisions among the justices, according to author Joan Biskupic’s account in her book “Breaking In” about Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“We believe that to the extent that to the extent that the court is considering the adoption of the plaintiffs map, then they too have the burden of proof to show that that was drawn with the proper intent and it meets all the constitutional requirements”, Cantero says.

“When they become eligible voters, they will become part of this base” of the voter population, Consovoy said.

Civil rights groups say that approach would be a blow to Hispanic communities, which tend to have both more children and more noncitizens than other areas. The difference is that Justice is advocating for the use of population as the standard.

Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller will defend that precedent on behalf of the state of Texas on Tuesday. Piggy-backing off of him Justice Samuel Alito pointed out “undocumented aliens” and “prisoners” are being counted in the census’ total population data.

“But why is one option exclusive of the other?”

One of the big cases in the Supreme Court’s current term is in front of the Justices this morning, in what could be a historic test of the “one-person, one-vote concept”. The law provided that trustees of the junior college district be apportioned among the separate K-12 districts on the basis of “school enumeration”, meaning the number of school-aged residents of the district (defined as those between 6 and 20 years old).

At one point Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to stress the importance of voters.

Blum used to be quite open about his work, but he is no longer talking to broadcasters, he says, because he isn’t good at it. The lawyers arguing the cases are not talking either. Justice Antonin Scalia, another conservative who is normally an active participant at oral arguments, asked no questions.

The University of Texas accuses Ms. Fisher’s lawyers of ignoring the history of that institution, which remained off-limits to black students under a state law struck down by the Supreme Court in 1950, and, they argue, continues to struggle to overcome its reputation as unwelcoming to members of minority groups.

The court is weighing a challenge brought by Texas voters to the state Senate redistricting map after the 2010 Census that drew district lines based roughly equally on total population, including non-voters and even non-citizens.

Latinos totaled 55 percent of eligible voters in District 1. The argument goes: the votes of eligible voters are diluted in districts full of ineligible residents like illegal aliens and felons. Permitting states to strip non-voters of representation would mean that areas with larger numbers of children and other non-voters could lose influence and, ultimately, could lose out on resources like funding for schools and other government programs upon which everyone in the community depends.