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

The controversy over “Silent Sam,” the Confederate monument on UNC’s Chapel Hill campus, has been ra [...]

North Carolina tries to mine its swine and deal with a poop problem that keeps piling up A blanket o [...]

This story is part of "Peak Pig," an examination of the hog industry co-published with Env [...]

Few issues in the North Carolina’s contentious policy wars have been more consistently front and cen [...]

Five years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a jaw-dropping civil rights lawsuit again [...]

Will Burr and Tillis really vote for this? For much of the 20th Century, one of the labels that Amer [...]

President Trump and Congressional Republicans aim to rebrand enormous tax cuts for the wealthiest ho [...]

20—number of years since a bipartisan coalition in Congress passed the Children’s Health Insurance P [...]

Spotlight on Journalism

We invite you to join a special celebration of investigative journalism! The evening will feature Mike Rezendes, a member of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe Spotlight Team known for their coverage of the cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

Tickets available NOW!

Spotlight On Journalism

This event will benefit NC Policy Watch, a project of the North Carolina Justice Center. Sponsorship opportunities available now!

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