Editorials: Does “one person, one vote” yield to partisan politics or the Voting Rights Act? | Amy Howe/SCOTUSblog

In 2000, Arizona voters amended the state’s constitution to give authority over redistricting to a five-member independent commission.  Taking that authority away from the state legislature was supposed to take the politics out of redistricting – a key factor in a case before the Supreme Court last Term, in which the Justices rejected a challenge to the commission’s power to draw federal congressional districts.  But a lawsuit now before the Court brought by a group of Arizona voters alleges that the commission, while supposedly non-partisan, is actually anything but.  During the redistricting that followed the 2010 census, Wesley Harris and his fellow challengers contend, the commission deliberately put too many voters in sixteen Republican districts while putting too few in eleven Democratic districts.  This means, Harris argues, that the votes of residents in the overpopulated districts effectively count less than the votes of their counterparts in the underpopulated districts – a violation of the constitutional principle of “one person, one vote.”  The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Harris’s challenge on Tuesday, in a case that – depending on how broadly the Justices rule – could affect legislative maps far beyond Arizona.

Full Article: Argument preview: Does “one person, one vote” yield to partisan politics or the Voting Rights Act? : SCOTUSblog.

Comments are closed.