Immigration and Citizenship

Justices in Evenwel Skeptical Of Disrupting Equal Representation For All Persons

Washington, DC – Constitutional Accountability Center attorneys were in the U.S. Supreme Court this morning during argument in Evenwel v. Abbott, a major voting rights case, and had the following reaction:

 

CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra said, “Our Constitution promises equal representation for all persons, and that point was emphasized powerfully today. Evenwel argues that representation should be based on the number of voters in a district, not persons, but as Justice Ginsburg emphasized, that was explicitly rejected in the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment. It is written into the Constitution that the whole population be represented—not just eligible voters, but every person, including children, legal non-citizen residents, and others who are unable to cast a ballot. There seemed to be little appetite from the Justices this morning to upend this quintessentially American system of equal representation.”

 

CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans continued, “No court in history has ever accepted Evenwel’s radical claim, which would wreak havoc with the redistricting process and require a new kind of U.S. census. Justices from the right and left seemed to recognize that Evenwel’s claim has no basis in the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the laws to ‘any person,’ not merely voters – as pointed out explicitly by Justice Kagan. Evenwel’s plea to rewrite the Constitution’s guarantee of equality for all seemed to fall flat today.”

 

#

 

Resources:

 

CAC’s “friend of the court” brief in Evenwel v. Abbott: http://theusconstitution.org/cases/evenwel-v-abbott-us-sup-ct 

 

“Up Next at the Supreme Court: A Challenge to Equality for All Americans,” David Gans, The New Republic, December 7, 2015: https://newrepublic.com/article/124955/next-supreme-court-challenge-equality-americans 

 

##

 

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

 

###

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Nairne v. Landry

In Nairne v. Landry, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on vote dilution is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power.
Voting Rights and Democracy
 

United States v. Paxton

In United States v. Paxton, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the Materiality Provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits states from denying the right...
Voting Rights and Democracy
 

Mi Familia Vota v. Petersen

In Mi Familia Vota v. Petersen, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considering whether requiring voters to include their birthplace on voter registration forms violates the Materiality Provision of the...
Rule of Law
 

Iowa v. SEC

In Iowa v. SEC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is considering the legality of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s new climate-related disclosure requirements.
Rule of Law
 

Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB

In Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering the legality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s update to its Examination Manual clarifying that discrimination may...
Rule of Law
 

Lackey v. Stinnie

In Lackey v. Stinnie, the Supreme Court is considering when a civil rights plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees as the “prevailing party” in a case.