Supreme Court makes a good call on redistricting

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday wisely reaffirmed the legality of the long-held practice of affording everyone who permanently lives in the United States — whether eligible to vote or not — representation in America’s political systems.

The court ruled on a challenge by two plaintiffs representing a Texas conservative group who argued that only eligible voters should have representation. That would have created chaos on the political landscape because nearly every state creates representative districts based on total population, not on registered voters. And for a government of the people, by the people and for the people— not “the voters” — it would have been just plain wrong.

Best of all, the decision was unanimous. Yes, unanimous. The court currently has a strong 4-4 split between generally liberal and generally conservative justices. How reassuring that all agree on this principle.

The court only has eight members now because the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia has not been filled. President Barack Obama has nominated Judge Merrick Garland, a highly qualified jurist, but Republicans in the Senate are refusing to act on the nomination, insisting the appointment should be made by the next president instead of Obama.

Many feared this case might be one of those caught in a 4-4 deadlock, but it wasn’t.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion for six justices, and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas each wrote concurring opinions.

“As history, precedent, and practice demonstrate, it is plainly permissible for jurisdictions to measure equalization by the total population of state and local legislative districts,” Ginsburg wrote.

This opinion reaffirms the legality of the current practice but does not settle the question of whether the system advocated by the plaintiffs would be legal should a political subdivision choose to use it. Ginsberg made that clear. “We need not and do not resolve,” she wrote, whether “... states may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population.”

The implication is that the court might divide on that question, so it should be left until some jurisdiction seeks to use that redistricting method.

The conservative group Project on Fair Representation had challenged the way Texas conducted its redistricting for state legislative seats in order to increase conservatives’ political power. Millions in the population aren’t eligible to vote — children, legal and undocumented immigrants, prisoners and those who are disenfranchised. Except for prisoners, those people are largely concentrated in urban areas, where Democrats dominate. A decision the other way would have shifted power toward Republican-friendly rural areas.

The court was wise to keep a traditional system that has served the republic well for centuries and guarantees everyone representation.

— Denver Post, Digital First Media