Uncategorized

Still One Person One Vote

Remember Edward Blum? He’s the retired stockbroker who, with the financial backing of several conservative donors, has been pumping named plaintiffs into some recent high-profile civil rights challenges that have landed before the U.S. Supreme Court  — namely, the Fisher v. University of Texas affirmative action case and the Shelby County v. Holder voting rights case.

Well, Blum lost one this week, as the Court declined to take another of his cases, Lepak v. City of Irvingwhich challenged the the basic democratic principle of “One Person, One Vote.”

In Irving, Tex., the City Council’s six districts have close to the same number of people. But in one heavily Hispanic district only about half the number of people were eligible to vote. “The political power of voters in that district is therefore amplified. Think of it as ‘one person two votes,’” Adam Liptak wrote in the The New York Times in March.

Voters from the other districts sued to challenge that district’s strength based upon these arguments, as summarized by Emily Phelps at the Constitutional Accountability Center:

At issue in Lepak was whether state and local governments should be constitutionally required to draw voting districts according to the geographic distribution of eligible voters, rather than the distribution of the population itself, with youth, non-citizens and other non-voters included in the count as they have been since time immemorial. Though the Constitution clearly states –twice, and decisively—that it’s persons who must be equally represented on electoral maps, Blum and the plaintiffs here argued that high concentrations of non-citizen immigrants in certain areas were effectively undermining the voting power of voters in more homogenous districts of adult citizens.

The court’s refusal to hear the case is a victory for voting rights advocates, who viewed the challenge as likely to lead to a dangerous shift of power “away from cities and neighborhoods with many immigrants and many children and toward the older, whiter, more exclusively native-born areas in which a higher proportion of the total population consists of eligible voters,” wrote University of Texas at Austin law professor Joseph R. Fishkin in the Yale Law Journal last year.

 

Check Also

State Supreme Court rules retroactive application of teacher tenure repeal is unconstitutional

The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that ...

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

This story has been updated with comments from Jim Womack, who did not respond earlier to questions. [...]

For the 18 months, Gary Brown has been traveling through northeastern North Carolina like an itinera [...]

It will be at least another month before state Superintendent Mark Johnson can take over at the helm [...]

Eric Hall, in the midst of a rainy drive to rural Robeson County to pitch North Carolina’s ambitious [...]

5---number of days since Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham unveiled a new proposal to repeal [...]

The post The stench of hate speech appeared first on NC Policy Watch. [...]

When a Navy recruiter visited his high school, Carlos was among those students eager to sign up. In [...]

Website with ties to Civitas Institute promotes anti-Semitic attack on Attorney General Stein There [...]

Featured | Special Projects

NC Budget 2017
The maze of the NC Budget is complex. Follow the stories to follow the money.
Read more


NC Redistricting 2017
New map, new districts, new lawmakers. Here’s what you need to know about gerrymandering in NC.
Read more