• Heritage Action
  • More
Sep 15

Evenwel v. Abbott: What Does One Person, One Vote Really Mean?


This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Evenwel v. Abbott, which could turn out to be the most significant redistricting case the Court has heard in decades. In Evenwel, two Texas voters claim that state legislative districts violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the Texas legislature included large numbers of noncitizens, who are ineligible to vote, in the population it used to draw the districts. The plaintiffs reside in districts whose voting populations deviate anywhere from 31 to 49 percent from the “ideal” population of a Texas Senate District. As a result, their votes have only about half the value of voters in other districts. The Supreme Court has never decided what population states should use to meet the one person, one vote standard it established almost sixty years ago under the Equal Protection Clause. Should this issue be left up to the states to decide? Or does one person, one vote require that only eligible voters be considered?

Join us as a distinguished legal expert and well-known election analyst address the constitutional and voting rights issues arising in this case and the potential political effect a decision by the Supreme Court could have on state legislatures as well as Congressional seats. The program host will be a former member of the Federal Election Commission and the Manager of The Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Initiative.

More About the Speakers

Andrew M. Grossman
Associate, Baker Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute

Sean Trende
Senior Elections Analyst, RealClearPolitics

Hosted By

Hans A. von Spakovsky Hans A. von Spakovsky

Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Read More