Supreme Court Issues Major Ruling In 'One Person, One Vote'

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can count their entire populations — those who are eligible to vote and those who are not — when drawing equal-sized election districts.

The question at the heart of the case was a simple one: Who should be counted when dividing voting districts? All people or only registered voters?

Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, plaintiffs who were recruited by a conservative legal activist, argued for registered voters, saying that, "There are voters or potential voters in Texas whose Senate votes are worth approximately one and one-half times that of appellants."

The state of Texas defended using total population, a practice that is used in all 50 states.

“The only question the court has to resolve here is whether the equal protection clause requires every state to change its current practice and use voter population to reapportion,” Texas solicitor general Scott A. Keller said. “The answer is no.”

The court ruled states may use — but are not necessarily required to use — total population, saying everyone is affected by policy decisions, not just people who are registered to vote.

"Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates and in receiving constituent services," the ruling said. "By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total-population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation."

The ruling was seen as a win for Democrats, who tend to live in more urban areas.

Children, immigrants who are not citizens, the mentally ill and undocumented immigrants, among other nonvoters, are also more concentrated in these areas and not spread evenly around states. So, voters in districts with a lower share of registered voters generally hold more power in their areas.

Areas that vote Republican usually have a higher percentage of registered voters.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who wrote the court's opinion, cited the 14th amendment in the ruling.

"Total-population apportionment meets the equal protection demand, by rendering each representative alert to the interests and constituent-service requests of all who dwell in the representative's district," she wrote.

The case was also one of the court's first high-profile rulings since Scalia's February death, which left the court with four conservative justices and four liberal ones.

The same legal firm that represented the plaintiffs in this case, the Project on Fair Representation, also represents a plaintiff in an upcoming case the court will hear on affirmative action.

In that case, Abigail Fisher, a white woman, sued the University of Texas at Austin after she was rejected from the school for what she claims was racial discrimination.

This is a developing story. Refresh this page for updates as they become available