Evenwel v Abbott: A Good Day for Democracy

American Thinker ^ | April 10, 2016 | James V.DeLong

[Kaslin]

In Evenwel v Abbott, the recent Texas legislative apportionment case, the plaintiffs argued that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that the boundaries of legislative districts be drawn so as to equalize numbers of CVAPs (“Citizens of Voting Age Population”), not total population.

A unanimous Supreme Court rejected the argument and upheld Texas’ use of total population. The Court refused to go further, and left open the question whether Texas could, consistent with the Constitution, use CVAP if it so chose.

Two concurrences (Thomas and Alito) emphasized that the choice of population base -- total numbers or CVAP -- is up to the state, but the majority refused to commit either way on this point, despite the fact that the general understanding has been that the state can choose.

The MSM and Progressive politicos promptly went on a triumphal parade: “Supreme Court Deals A Blow to Conservatives” (Huffington Post); “Court Rejects Challenge on ‘One Person, One Vote’” (NY Times); “Today, the Supreme Court rejected a radical effort to diminish the voices of the American people in our democracy” (Nancy Pelosi); “Big Victory for Voting Rights” (Election Law Blog); “there are limits to what conservative opponents of minority representation can get away with” (New York).

You can believe this spin if you want, but it is not really accurate. In fact, Evenwel was an advance for the cause of constitutional conservatism, and for the future of the Republic.

[William Tell]

From the article: ... the plaintiffs argued that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that the boundaries of legislative districts be drawn so as to equalize numbers of CVAPs (“Citizens of Voting Age Population”), not total population.

From the Fourteenth Amendment:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

I don't see mention of "Citizens of Voting Age Population" at all.

Why have a Constitution if it isn't going to be used? The conclusion I draw is that every state has a vested interest in preventing other states from importing illegal aliens in order to boost their representation in Congress. Seems pretty simple to me.

[Fraxinus]

Yeah a losing argument, Previous court ruling and custom had gone for all residents in a state (easiest to count). If they had truely wanted to exclude illegal aliens, they should instead of arguing for only citizens of Voting age, they should have argued that Indians not taxed is the category illegal aliens should fall under.

The phrasing indicates that several categories of citizen non-voters were to be included in the counts (largest group then and now are probably minors).