Evenwel v. Abbott (14-940)

argument 14-940

Evenwel v. Abbott

Supreme Court of the United States 55 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal question presented in Evenwel v. Abbott?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument next this morning in case fourteen nine

Unknown 0:03

forty, even well versus uh Abbott. Mr Consvoy? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. This appeal presents a fundamental question. That question is whether the one person one vote rule affords eligible voters any reasonable protection. We submit that the answer must be yes under this Court's decisions, and as a consequence, appellants have stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. The districts at issue here, District one and district four, have deviations as measured by eligible voters approaching fifty percent under any metric of eligible voters. No decision of this court has ever sustained vote delusion of that magnitude. under a one person, one vote case. beginning with Gray, continuing to Westbury, through Reynolds and the Court's many decisions since then.

Unknown 0:51

The issue has always been vote solution.

How do the parties argue that the One‑Person‑One‑Vote rule protects eligible voters?

Unknown 0:53

What about the many times the court has said that the the principal is equal representation of the population and we have had Now for half a century. Population. It's the population. Ich de the legitimate standard. We have never held To the contrary. So we have The states overwhelmingly for half a century using population as shown in the census. And now you're saying they can't do that anymore. Um I could answer the question in in three different ways. First, with respect to the phrase equal representation for equal numbers of people, that sentence originated in Westbury. But that's only half the sentence. There's a dash, and it continues. Therefore, for us to hold That within the States, legislatures may draw the lines of congressional districts in such a way as to give some voters a greater voice in choosing a congressman than others would be unconstitutional.

Unknown 1:55

And in fact, in every time the court uses that phrase, which is the only one I believe my friends rely on, it is either within the same sentence or bracketed on one side or the other by protection of voters. Now, as to tradition. to the actually to the word population. We don't we a we see that as asking the question, not answering it. Burns explains that Reynolds used population without distinguishing. Burns itself reserved on the question. Hadley confirms that Burns reserved on it. Here we are today. I thought I thought Burns said it approved a deviation from population. But it took great pains to say we're not saying you could do that in every case. Uh The only the only case that you have and birds involve this really peculiar situation

Unknown 2:45

of Hawaii with a tremendous Military. Temporary. population. I I read Burns as reserving on it completely, to not choose one way or the other. Uh it certainly did say that you do not have to use the the census to draw districts. That supports our position. It certainly says that you can protect eligible voters. That supports our position. And and further back to uh Your Honor's question about tradition. If tradition were the rule, Baker would have come out the other way.

Why do the advocates emphasize total population versus eligible‑voter population in redistricting?

Unknown 3:14

Before Baker, for centuries, geography was the basis. And the court said in Baker as a matter of jurisdiction and then in Reynolds as a matter of of equal protection law that tradition doesn't trump the individual rights of a voter to be protected. And we don't have to guess about that because we know from standing. In all of those cases, standing was predicated on the right of the voter. It would be unusual if someone who couldn't vote came to this court and says said, My one a child, for instance, my one person one vote rights have been violated. The problem is that

Elena Kagan 3:47

What you're forgetting is the dual interest. There is a voting interest, but there's also a representation interest. And it's that which has led us um to to accept the total population base. because states have to have some discretion. To figure out Cool. should be having the representational voice. Burns made it very clear that we were deferring to the state Because it had a legitimate reason for its need. Um And but Burns was in the nineteen sixties when we picked total population. as a perfectly legitimate way because there's a representational need at issue as well.