IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v101y2020i1p10-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Meaning of “One Person, One Vote” or Let Us Split the Baby in Half: Evenwel v. Abbott

Author

Listed:
  • Henry Flores

Abstract

Objective This article evaluates Evenwel v. Abbott to determine how and why the U.S. Supreme Court reached the decision it did in determining whether the appropriate database for a state to utilize in redistricting is the total population count or the American Community Survey's five‐year estimates. At the core of the decision was whether apportionment was based on participation or representation, voters or total population. Method A qualitative analysis of plaintiff and defendant arguments and the district court's and U.S. Supreme Court's decisions. Additionally, a discussion of the accuracy of the American Community Survey's five‐year estimate is presented. Conclusion The final decision was a decisive unanimous decision where the Court concluded, citing historical, constitutional precedence and traditional redistricting practices, that total population generated by the U.S. Census Bureau every decade was to be used as the base data for redistricting. The Supreme Court definitively stated that apportionment and redistricting were designed as representational mechanisms for all persons counted by the Bureau of the Census and not simply voters.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry Flores, 2020. "The Meaning of “One Person, One Vote” or Let Us Split the Baby in Half: Evenwel v. Abbott," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(1), pages 10-22, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:1:p:10-22
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12740
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12740?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:1:p:10-22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.