. . . in Evenwel v. Abbott.
Wearing her gold, star-pointy, jabot-like whatchamacallit Ginsburg announced the unanimous decision that “one person, one vote” means Texas may draw voting districts according to total population as it does now, and is not required, as the petitioners claimed, to count only eligible voters. But the Court said “may,” not must, and the question whether it would be equally permissible to count only voters in determining districts is not settled.
I also did this Hiroshige inspired banner sketch for SCOTUSblog on this lovely spring morning (the weather for the rest of the week may not be so pleasant).
I prepared the banner you see above for SCOTUSblog because the Court was to hear arguments today in two voting related cases, Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and Evenwel v. Abbott. But I didn’t expect the trifecta that came with Justice Scalia’s opinion in a Maryland voting redistricting case, Shapiro v. McManus, especially since it was argued just last month. My lucky day.
Anyway, here are the sketches from today’s two argument:
Does “one person, one vote”, a rallying cry of the Civil Rights Movement, and one that the Supreme Court enshrined in a 1964 decision in Reynolds v. Sims, mean voting districts should have the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters? That’s the new case, Evenwel v. Abbott, that the Court agreed to hear next term.
And also an excuse for me to exercise my inner cartoonist.