SCOTUS rejects population counts based on CVAP only

[muon2]

The case of Lepak vs. City of Irving was rejected by SCOTUS leaving the appellate court decision in favor of Irving, TX. The city created a Latino-majority council district, but the number of voters was half that of other districts due to the low citizenship rates. CVAP may matter for VRA cases, but not for population equality.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I actually disagree with that decision. "One man, one vote" means that district sizes should be based on the number of people who actually have a right to vote.

[Benj]

I actually disagree with that decision. "One man, one vote" means that district sizes should be based on the number of people who actually have a right to vote.

Problem is that CVAP doesn't actually capture only eligible voters, of course. Laws on who is eligible to vote vary from state to state; some states disenfranchise felons, others don't, for example. So just cutting out non-citizens is problematic. Existing laws also count total population, not voting age population, for apportionment, so again using only citizenship as a measurement is wrong.

As far as we're going to have districts, they have to represent the entire population. Just because you're not eligible to vote doesn't mean you should be invisible in the eyes of the law--whether you're under age, a non-citizen, a felon, or what have you. Legislators still represent you. Counting only eligible voters for redistribution eviscerates the rights of all such people.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, the Supremes did not reject drawing districts based on CVAP only, rather they have rejected drawing districts only based on CVAP.  Where the only is placed matters here.

[Benj]

Actually, the Supremes did not reject drawing districts based on CVAP only, rather they have rejected drawing districts only based on CVAP.  Where the only is placed matters here.

Well, they didn't actually do anything. They just denied cert.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I actually disagree with that decision. "One man, one vote" means that district sizes should be based on the number of people who actually have a right to vote.

Problem is that CVAP doesn't actually capture only eligible voters, of course. Laws on who is eligible to vote vary from state to state; some states disenfranchise felons, others don't, for example. So just cutting out non-citizens is problematic. Existing laws also count total population, not voting age population, for apportionment, so again using only citizenship as a measurement is wrong.

As far as we're going to have districts, they have to represent the entire population. Just because you're not eligible to vote doesn't mean you should be invisible in the eyes of the law--whether you're under age, a non-citizen, a felon, or what have you. Legislators still represent you. Counting only eligible voters for redistribution eviscerates the rights of all such people.

Of course, the simple solution would be to have automatic registration nationwide... But this makes way too much sense to ever happen.

[Torie]

Revamping Baker v Carr to draw districts based on who is eligible to vote would be quite insane. That was never going to happen. Beyond the policy issues, administering such a metric would be a statistical, and subjective, nightmare.

[minionofmidas]

Even using CVAP for VRA purposes is problematic as long as citizenship is not actually counted in the Census.

As to the case in question, "laughed out of court" seems a good description.

[jimrtex]

Revamping Baker v Carr to draw districts based on who is eligible to vote would be quite insane. That was never going to happen. Beyond the policy issues, administering such a metric would be a statistical, and subjective, nightmare.

This is a quite readable explanation of the issues involved, and explains why no revamping of Reynolds v Sims is necessary.

No More Weighting: One Person, One Vote Means One Person, One Vote

The 5th Circuit's opinion in Lepak is based on their early decision in Chen v City of Houston III.  See Part IV.   Their conclusion was that it was a political decision.  They ruled against the plaintiffs in Lepak on the basis that there were no intervening SCOTUS rulings that would cause them to revisit the earlier decision for the 5th Circuit.

The City of Irving "voluntarily" districted on the basis of population.  Once a city chooses to district on the basis of CVAP, the SCOTUS will have to take the case.

Incidentally, Chen also contains a finding that a 8.63% variation in city council districts is within safe harbor limits.