Evenwel v. Abbott
578 U.S. 54
SCOTUS2016Background
- After the 2010 Census Texas drew State Senate districts using total population (census) data; the plan (S172) has an 8.04% maximum total-population deviation (under the 10% safe-harbor).
- Measured by voter-based baselines (eligible or registered voters), some districts differ by over 40% in voter population; appellants live in districts with relatively large voter populations.
- Appellants sued, claiming Equal Protection’s one-person, one-vote requires equalizing voter-eligible population (e.g., CVAP), not total population, and sought an injunction requiring a voter-population–equalized map.
- A three-judge District Court dismissed for failure to state a claim, reasoning no Supreme Court or circuit precedent mandates using voter population as the apportionment baseline.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding States may draw legislative districts based on total population; it relied on constitutional history, precedent, and longstanding practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Equal Protection (one-person, one-vote) requires districts be equalized by voter-eligible population (CVAP/registered voters) | Evenwel: the Clause protects "voter equality" — each eligible voter’s ballot must have equal weight, so districts must equalize voter population | Texas/United States: the Clause does not mandate a voter-based baseline; States may use total population or any neutral, nondiscriminatory baseline | Held: States may use total population; plaintiffs’ voter-population rule is not required by the Equal Protection Clause |
| Whether long historical practice and the Fourteenth Amendment’s apportionment history require or forbid voter-based districting | Evenwel: modern understanding of “one-person, one-vote” favors voter-based equality | Texas/US: historical record (Great Compromise, Fourteenth Amendment debates) and practice support total-population apportionment | Held: historical debates and §2’s retention of total-population apportionment support permissibility of total-population baselines |
| Whether precedents that use the one-person, one-vote slogan actually require voter-based equalization | Evenwel: selective quotations ("one person, one vote") imply voter-equality requirement | Texas/US: precedents often frame the rule as equality of representation and have consistently used total population for evaluation | Held: precedent supports total-population measurement; Court has not used eligible-voter baselines to judge deviations |
| Whether the Court must decide if States may instead choose to use voter-based baselines | Evenwel: asks Court to adopt voter-based rule | Texas: contends States could choose voter-based baselines but not required; U.S. asks Court not to decide that question | Held: Court did not decide whether States may adopt voter-based apportionment; only held that total-population apportionment is constitutionally permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (congressional districts must approximate equal population)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (state legislative seats must be apportioned on a population basis)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (malapportionment claims are justiciable)
- Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966) (Hawaii permissible to use registered-voter baseline due to special circumstances)
- Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973) (upheld state legislative plan using total population)
- Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1 (1975) (invalidated reapportionment with large total-population deviation)
- Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969) (congressional districts must be as equal in population as practicable)
- Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963) (one-person, one-vote principle applied to weighted county voting system)