Evenwel v. Abbott
Headline: Ruling upholds states’ use of total population for drawing legislative districts, allowing Texas and other states to count all residents rather than only eligible voters and preserve existing maps.
Holding: The Court held that States may lawfully draw state and local legislative districts using total population counts from the census, and Texas’s total-population State Senate map is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause.
- Allows states to count all residents when drawing legislative districts.
- Upheld existing maps drawn by total-population counts, including Texas’s map.
- Leaves open whether States may instead adopt voter-eligible population baselines.
Summary
Background
Two Texas voters, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, sued state officials after Texas adopted a State Senate map drawn using total population from the census. The permanent map (S172) had an 8.04% maximum deviation by total population but showed more than a 40% deviation when measured by eligible or registered voters. The District Court dismissed the challenge, and the applicants appealed to this Court, which agreed to hear the question.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the Constitution’s Equal Protection guarantee requires states to draw state and local legislative districts based on voter-eligible population instead of total population. Relying on constitutional history, the Court’s precedents, and long-standing practical practice, the majority held that measuring districts by total population is permitted. The opinion explains that the Framers and later lawmakers chose total population for apportionment, that past one-person, one-vote cases have used total-population figures, and that all 50 States have long followed this approach. Because history, precedent, and practice foreclose the plaintiffs’ claim, the Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment.
Real world impact
The decision lets Texas and other states continue using census total-population counts when drawing legislative districts, leaving many existing maps intact. The Court did not decide whether States may instead choose to equalize voter-eligible populations, so alternatives remain legally possible but unresolved.
Dissents or concurrances
Two Justices joined separate opinions: Justice Thomas agreed with the outcome but argued the Court lacks a sound basis for the one-person, one-vote doctrine and would leave such choices to the States; Justice Alito also concurred in the judgment but declined to decide broader questions about alternative population bases.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?