In a closely watched case this Term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Evenwel v. Texas that states are not constitutionally required to use citizen voting age population as the baseline when conducting state legislative redistricting. The Court, however, left the larger question undecided of whether states are constitutionally permitted to use citizen voting age population as the baseline. As state legislatures and redistricting commissions across the country begin to prepare for the next round of redistricting, they will have to consider what Evenwel means for their legislative plans.
Evenwel, however, was not the Court’s only recent case about the one-person-one-vote doctrine. The Court also decided Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission this Term, which raised the question of whether states need to justify population deviations among legislative districts when those deviations are less than 10%. And in Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama last Term, the Court decided that the one-person-one-vote doctrine must be considered a background principle against which redistricting is measured and cannot be a state’s predominant motive in redistricting. These decisions further refined and shaped the one-person-one-vote doctrine.
This course examines the historical underpinnings of the one-person-one-vote doctrine and then discuss the Court’s recent decisions and their implications for the upcoming round of redistricting. Jessica Ring Amunson is the Co-Chair of Jenner & Block’s Election Law and Redistricting Practice and has unique insight into these issues having represented parties either on the merits or as amicus in Evenwel, Harris, and Alabama Democratic Conference.
an engrossing topic
Lays out laws on gerrymandering in an easy to understand format
Very interesting and useful material. Well presented.
Very helpful for understanding current SCOTUS litigation