Youll hear the argument case 494 o Evenwel V Abbott simic mr. Chief justice of it may please the court this is a fundamental question whether the oneperson onevote affords eligible voters of any reasonable protection resubmit the answer must be asked and as a consequence under the equal protection clause. The item that is at issue is a deviation from the eligible voters under any metric. No decision is ever sustained to that magnitude with the oneperson onevote case in the many decisions it has always been about. What about the principle is equal representation in now for half a century a population that is the legitimate standard . So the states overwhelmingly for half a century so now you say they cannot do that anymore . With respect to the phrase equal representation thats originated in westbury. There is a dash tat continues therefore for us to hold within the states legislatures may draw the line in such a way to give some voters a greater voice to choose a congressman would be unconstitutional every time they use that phrase that i believe is the only one my friends relied on, could be on one side or another. We see that as asking the question but not to answer that burdens reserve the question and confirms he reserved on it. I got burns said it approved a deviation but it took great pains to say you cannot do that in every case burdens seems to be the only case that you have with a tremendous military temporary population. Is certainly did say you dont have to use the census to draw the districts am protects the eligible voters that supports our position and going back a tradition was a rule. Before baker for centuries geography and the court said with jurisdiction but it does not trump those individual rights to be protected. We dont have to guess about that the standing is predicated on the voter it would be unusual to say my one person has been violated the problem is what you are forgetting is dual interest. There is a voting interest but also a representation interest. And that has led us to except the total population case to have some discretion to have the representational tories that had of the deliveries and the burns was in the 60s with total population as a perfectly legitimate way because the representational issue as well but this state has to be able to say a legislator is protecting citizens are noncitizens. Just to clarify it is a really representational interest. A nonvoter will have one representative is an access claim. It isnt even an access claim it is diminishing access that is how far from voting the interest on the other side. To have diminishing access we dont deny that is an interest with county lines and other interest and a 10 for work isnt a situation where we complain about a deviation. It is nearly 50 nonesuch is diminishing access would overcome the individual rights of a voter as an equal vote. But it should reapportion those house members to the population as a metric the question raised by your position is why it would be the case that constitution requires it is fundamentally different focusing on taxation issues and was a real concern. But what in hell than reynolds the compromise does not justify this type of injury. Alabama came to the court to say we surrender every county gets one representative natalie on the population basis. And the reason was because constitutionally the arizona constitution required the population and that they deviated from their own constitution. But we succeeded on the ground of this whole population. But the portion of the of qualified voters no question it was of the tennessee constitution but that fundamental issue debt grey is about election for state wide office there will be one of governor to have the same access but grey establishes the rules to say voters are entitled to equal vote. It doesnt make any sense. They assume that misery could district at the congressional level for eligible voters. In using the essences. Did i understand you to save that house apportionment rule is not clear . Congressional districting interest so the United States has argued interstate congressional districting for that proposition the 1969 it decided that issue. If the only way to make sense of that rule is about eligible voters. They can beat bring a claim not only is that our view but congress view. And all the years 19681 dash 1868 and 1920 was wrong for these limits . There were not eligible voters. No question that was a problem there was an issue with minorities as well. But the court was doing more than one thing. But your interpretation 1868 through 1920 they should not have been counted women for purposes of determining representation. For the equal protection clause one person one vote per texas voters the disenfranchisement was an issue they could have been brought but it was brought resolved by the country as well as minority representation but the war in court has the equal weight for voters as a non citizen or any other would not have the ability. The when to go back to the question it seems everybody is arguing like this is equal protection and it does do with equal protection and it does in which of the voters but if you step back from the equal protection clause to say there are other parts of the constitution may we is a republican form of government and to be worried about what type of democracy and they say the Republican Former government what we actually want is the kind of democracy within they choose to vote or not will receive a proportionate representation in congress if you take that as the constitutional principle that shows an objective of the constitution then you have to retreat from the idea of equal protection clause as interpreted is this case. To argue this is a guaranteed clause claim shows how far the logic past ago to come upon thee aside. It is the basis for curing these cases to turn 180 degrees to turn that abstract guarantee clause claim. She did not guarantee that. But it is the same point. Darr reynolds does speak to this because that was sustained the model that follows the house of representatives and Justice Beyer even if you are correct with that theory we have alleged in our complaint texas could have done much more with voting equality. But you didnt come in with that. So ill allegation is paragraph 22 is to be taken as true but what we believe is fundamental we want the court or ourselves to read this to the Texas Legislature to do its job. Bistate what it was precluded from taking. With that possible possibility has a played into the discussion of all . You are positive you can find eligible voters has been decisively been proven to be inadequate. It only measures cities with populations over 65,000 just on those grounds alone districts will not be able to rely on that. Is applied on many levels. Flawed so does that have any part of our decision . If the court were to hold to a different questions it is our burden to bring in evidence that total population did not protect individual rights but we have alleged that. If we cannot prove that the we have failed but it would be a different question if they said yes it is sufficient to show your rights had been violated but not to drop a new map then the court is an unusual place so that is the argument that you had a violation but no way to solve that is now were back to the political question so free go back to the premise if youre looking at the one year data but the states use the five year data that means the population is going down less than 3,000 people just the individual plot group data is what it doesnt have and that is rarely used here. But it is used in section two every day. To bring a successful section with the citizens voting age population to get to the first factor for section two if there is 50. One minority eligible voters you can proceed so this data determines that question if you can do that and is supported using that data for this purpose then it can bring a deviation of 47 would get the supplemental appendix if you turn to page five and there is a column that list all the numbers for the Texas Senate District they ask for the numbers to draw the map. If you look at district 1500 and 87,000 people. Right next to that is plus or minus that is the margin of error. If you take all those margins of error several under populated districts if you ran the numbers the deviation for 47 to 45 this is not an issue of the margin of error about data it is used by every demographer at every turn. Go back to the question the justice brier raised of the guarantee clause because the framers explicitly considered this issue and made a decision. So senator howard talks about these deliberations to say as the most just and satisfactory basis that was originally framed and then he said numbers not voters members bought property that is the theory of the constitution. That is not the same thing you talk about but the theory to house apportionment. This is such a clear choice that was made about what it meant to have equal representation and had you go from that being mandated to being prohibited is something i still cannot work myself around. His position was rejected because that exact argument was brought about by alabama not only model but that was smeared exactly that is not correct as a legal matter because apportionment was considered they want states to have taxation basis the was an issue with suffrage for sure in the application a complex federalism based sovereignty compromise that does not apply i cannot do any better. I hear you does not apply. I can understand i may not agree with the position that says the requirement might not apply you suggest we go beyond that put that states have to do with the exact opposite way. We take our cue and all follows from the right to starting with the proposition one person cannot begin to walla neighbor gets one it is an under the Electoral College type of model. The third step you cannot accomplish that discrimination by drawing lines. If you accept that is true. And even if it follows the apportionment model if its says i dont have a claim because of lead different constitutional provision that is beyond which that projects be argument. Congress agreed with our position not only that has been so widely used but in perkins and later cases to embolden the plurality that section to the same argument can be made it only counts eligible voters. If the court were to proceed in no protection who were not minority status. There is a fundamental disconnect. In your view this states would have a choice or the you could use registered voters . If this isnt done that it of the distribution of legislators therefore it can use any metric that distributes legislators. And those that meet the basic qualifications. And then burns doubles down and when we draw lines at the beginning to food and that deciding to choose to vote that data that we rely on is the most accurate measure. And it is important to keep in mind everything that were asking to be done. Then to put it all into a computer they drew the districts. They used it to comply with section two. All we ask legislation to do do they do that purposely . Under oneperson onevote that deviation. Day intentionally had deviation . We will never know because of the state law. That precluded texas from voter eligibility. It is arbitrary. If they want to make this a representational matter. Today intentionally decided to exclude . That deviation that we established for those eligible voters of prime facia evidence that says you can have the beat deviations if you have a legitimate reason. Why would that great representational need that justice can again talked about not be adequate . We do not want to beat the enemy of the good. Were asking for nothing more than the 10 or 20 range. Now you say tedder 20 but it was 10 with population. The court has held that up they suggested 20 as the auteur limit. Would of texas says we want children to be represented . What is the deviation . Weve only looked at eligible voters but they are represented at the polls by their parents if the parents are disenfranchised it is by the state with. What about children that our citizens of their parents or not . We do not have an article to discriminates against children. If it pleases the court the only question that has to resolve the equal protection clause requires every state the voter population to reapportion the answer is no. Id used federal census data to get total population is states have done for decades. As a permissible a portion. Why dont they use that under section two . Under the Voting Rights act . That protects the voters in our position id like United States only voters are protected. So considering if there is an opportunity to collect a candidate of ones choice. It is called the oneperson onevote with. It does but there are multiple legitimate basis on which states can redistrict and if i can back out what we deal with is the general protection clause and the court has noted before that impact is it with that of a constitution but texas the using a total population and no state today use is voter population did not target groups to cancel out the voting power to reduce their ability to elect representatives of their choice. And makes a choice that as the courts case has noted that what it cannot do is submerge the population in principle. But there is no allegation here of the deviation of total population but could not satisfy the oneperson onevote doctrine unless we are required. If it is one person one vote with an equal chance to affect the outcome to be a good enough proxy of the eligible voters. That is what argument. That is close enough. The representational ecology is the real basis. So which argument are you making . The total population but at the same time representational equality is not the basis but it is our position and we could choose a reliable measure of the population without running afoul of the equal protection clause guaranteed but to be in great conflict. The cousin of the chances of any of the voters affecting rubio, the election and. You may have a situation it does not have an equal representation and you cannot just say we serve both. To allow the states and what was left to the states. Part of flat is recognized and to structure elections and to our intention that is not the legitimate basis upon which to reapportion. One. Is a permissible bases. With a liberty interest that is a valid interest. One with a 45 deviation and at that point to recognize those are legitimate one to have some consideration to the disparity among voters. To double the population there was a 29 deviation of voter population but the court said it will usher but they were sure it was not made out so wild a state can consider representation and the quality the equal protection clause is general language does not mandate that either must take precedence over the other. So of course, it would be legitimate for the state to look at that data. At the same time we have federal census data but for texas to use that data sets with a total population data. Butted table on page nine by inspection i dont know. But i thought the major difference between the two is some areas of theko w they would still be represented but the issue is this the state have to have the same amount of constituents per representative . That sounds a lots like 1750 to say dont worry because after all they represent everybody to be represented through somebody else that is tough. With a child would still be represented by that member is access1pn÷ they would inevitably have to disregard to keep communities together. That would be the opposite of what the states have in this context to structure their elections. That sounds highly probable. Further studies . I dont believe so. We are not aware of any. Also if it is any possible allegation is was possible we would not expect how often this is a problem . And it seems to me it will not make a difference. I believe the amicus brief suggested alaska or new york city it will absolutely come up. It would not be a problem everywhere but that would change the nature of redistricting. So with that deviation of the voter population under 10 does that take care of the areas . For the reasons i just suggested that would be an onerous burden. Could there possibly be a situation out there to get within a 10 deviation in . May be. I am not aware of any such scenario. That is not a test of discrimination that a summons voting power is being cancelled out. Your adversary says a c. S. Is fine used in section two and five. Why would that be inappropriate to in deciding the impact of the voting analysis . If that data is under section two of the Voting Rights act it is liable for apportionment. For instance that fiveyear average the smaller you get for district levels depending on a city plan to get with that deviation you could use that data and within a 10 mediation. That is up to the states the illegitimate population bases. Section two of the Voting Rights act it does not protect nonvoters. Earlier when we discussed section to and the amicus brief of 26 says of the American Group it is not to blame for the lack of representation and. That they could be packing or cracking claims of communities with those blocks is the incorrect interpretation and that is not contrary than proportional. The court has no further questions. In queue thank you. Mr. Chief justice redistricting on population indicates the principal for equal numbers of people we agree texas was not required to redistrict as the undefined measure of population but we disagree court should decide texas is free in the future to redistrict based on voter population of the jews is. There are four reasons why voter population cannot be required. With a very odd interpretation for redistricting would require for congressional redistricting. With the states redistricting other than the voter population with the 14th amendment other than voter Population Congress with the portion an act required districting on the basis of inhabitants they had unanimously restricted on the total population. But they are real. The number of limitations first of all, it is not constitutionally required it would be odd for the court to demand a constitutional standard that does not even have to be collected. It does not measure with the plaintiff suggest is required. It is not a measure of built voter eligibility it doesnt include data or felons or overseas voters or mentally ill. With respect to the data picking upon the point of Justice Sotomayor it does not exist at all level of singularity to be clear it doesnt exist where districting happens. To come out in april 2021 the fiveyear average comes out in the saber and dash december data and going forward. Use one factor if electoral opportunity has been given. With the turn how data of the social economic factor to say thousands of local jurisdictions with the sole measure of redistricting. Who has standings to bring that claim . It is noticed that the court never had to resolve it has the exact sa