A triumph for common sense
Considering the deep ideological divisions on the U.S. Supreme Court, getting a unanimous ruling on any major case is about as rare as an appearance by Halley’s Comet. But that happened Monday, when the court announced an 8-0 decision upholding the principle that voting districts are based on the total population and not just the number of eligible voters.
This makes complete sense – lawmakers represent all the people within a district, whether they are allowed to vote, or choose to vote. Writing for the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated “nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates – children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public-education system – and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies.” She concluded that “total population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation.”
It upheld the American principle of “one person one vote.” But the plaintiffs in the case, two voters from Texas represented by a conservative advocacy group, argued their votes were dilluted because other districts contained large numbers of people who are not eligible to vote, such as children or undocumented immigrants.
Like voter ID laws that have been cropping up across the country since Barack Obama became president, this was another attempt by lawmakers or their fellow-travelers on the right to place a thumb on the scales. Had the court agreed with their arguments, it would have enhanced the clout of suburban and rural districts and reduced the influence of cities – places that are more prone to vote for their political opponents.
Rather than try to shuffle the rules in the face of a demographic tide that could swamp them, conservatives would be better off trying to sharpen their arguments and convince voters in all communities and in all walks of life that their ideas are worth supporting.