Evenwel v. Abbott



Print page

  • How did the case get to the supreme court?  Where did it originate?
  • What was the majority opinion of the court?  Do you agree?
  • What are the Core Democratic values present here?  

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that voting districts be created with a “one man one vote system” based upon population. This principle can be interpreted differently and was the case after an Interim plan was created in 2012 due to a change in redistricting after the 2010 census. Registered voters Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenniger sued the State claiming that this interim plan violated the key “one man one vote” principle in the clause.

Their argument was that the districts were organized by total population rather than registered voter population which didn’t adhere to the clause. The state won with a six justice majority stating that the 14th amendment clearly gave discretion to voting districts to be based upon total population, regardless of the registered voters within it. No further legislative action was taken due to their not being a single theory on how states redistrict. Clarence Thomas’ opinion was that as long as the populations were equal in correlation with the constitution the states should be left with their own approaches on how to make sure it happened. This is called local legal discretion.  All voting and voter laws are regulated on a local and state government level unless some violation of federally protected civil rights is occurring.

The interpretation of any statement can vary, and it is our duty as citizens to question any doubts we posses concerning these laws. We can only go so far with a personal review which ultimately will be overpowered by the judicial review of the Supreme Court. We the people must compromise

You can read more about the case here