Unconscionable: Supreme Court case may gut "one person, one vote"

A far-right group in Texas has a court case called Evenwel v. Abbott. Look it up sometime. I'm shocked they even filed a case like this.

This case would actually make it illegal to use the "one person, one vote" standard for congressional apportionment and redistricting - a standard that's been established for decades. Instead of districting based on actual population, states would be required to draw their congressional and state legislative boundaries based on the number of registered voters.

"One person, one vote" is supposed to mean "one person, one vote." Period. Full stop. This means that even people who are not eligible voters are supposed to be counted in redistricting. This has never been in doubt in modern times. For example, kids under 18 can't vote, but they still count in redistricting, because children use public facilities and programs.

That anyone would challenge "one person, one vote" would be laughable if it wasn't such a serious matter. This has become a serious matter now that the Supreme Court has - shockingly - decided to hear the case. Lower courts have quite properly rejected the plaintiffs' argument, but the Supremes have been launching a frontal attack against the Constitution and issuing a lot of ideologically based rulings in recent years.

Plus, this case is part of a larger effort to erase the groundbreaking Reynolds v. Sims ruling - which is what truly settled the "one person, one vote" question. Having failed so far at carving out North Colorado as the 51st state, the Far Right is chomping at the bit for activist judges to do their dirty work for them. If they succeed at this, it's hard to see how there's any hope for America.