A plain vote grab

For decades, election boundaries followed a simple rule: one- person, one- vote. But left unresolved was who should be counted when the map making was done. Was it everyone or a smaller subset of eligible voters? It’s a hugely consequential question that the U. S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider with a decision expected next year. Depending on which way the famously divided court swings, the outcome could detonate politics, immigration and voting rights. The challenge goes to the heart of electoral representation. If all people are counted, as they are now, boundaries for county, state and Congress races favor high- population urban areas and, by extension, Democrats. These district lines include nonvoting immigrants, children and others such as felons who can’t vote in some states. Partisanship aside, an elected representative has broad responsibilities taking in all constituents. But a challenge backed by a Texas conservative group wants a different measure. Only eligible citizens should be counted in drawing up the lines. If that yardstick is used, an edge would go to rural areas or suburbia, where Republicans would likely benefit. In 1964, the high court set the oneperson, one- vote standard. Back then, low- population cow counties held sway way beyond their numbers. “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres,’’ Chief Justice Earl Warren declared. But the court never gave a definition of whom to count. Subsequent court decisions sidestepped the issue, allowing census numbers to do the work. Fast forward to today, when a boom in immigration and low registration patterns now figure. Though the legal challenge aims at state legislative lines, a court ruling could reach beyond to local and congressional boundaries. In California, the results could shift voting power away from high- immigration areas such as the Central Valley and Southern California. Districts with high Latino numbers but lower registration figures would have to be redrawn in ways that would diminish the concentrated power of that minority group. At the county level, San Francisco’s politics could be altered, too. The city has 11 city supervisors elected from districts with nearly equal head counts. If only eligible citizens were counted, the boundaries and election day outcomes might be much different if Asian and Latino noncitizens are subtracted. On the face of it, the challenge is radical, calling on the court to dump decades of accepted practice. Also, it’s built on the need for census data on eligible voters, which critics say isn’t there. But the timing is ripe for a conservative attack, given the high court’s prior decision watering down federal oversight of voting abuses. At its heart, the criticism is politically contrived and unfair. Elected leaders from the city level to Washington are expected to represent all the people, not just a subset. The Supreme Court should reject the challenger’s selective standard.