Podcasts about evenwel

This week, we revisit one of the most important Supreme Court cases you've probably never heard of: Baker v. Carr, a redistricting case from the 1960s, which challenged the justices to consider what might happen if they stepped into the world of electoral politics. It's a case so stressful that it pushed one justice to a nervous breakdown, put another justice in the hospital, brought a boiling feud to a head, and changed the course of the Supreme Court — and the nation — forever. Voices in the episode include: • Tara Grove — More Perfect legal advisor, University of Texas at Austin law professor • Guy-Uriel Charles — Harvard law professor • Louis Michael Seidman — Georgetown law school professor • Sam Issacharoff — NYU law school professor • Craig A. Smith — PennWest California humanities professor and Charles Whittaker's biographer • J. Douglas Smith — Author of "On Democracy's Doorstep" • Alan Kohn — Former Supreme Court clerk for Charles Whittaker (1957 term) • Kent Whittaker — Charles Whittaker's son • Kate Whittaker — Charles Whittaker's granddaughter Learn more: • 1962: Baker v. Carr • 2000: Bush v. Gore • 2016: Evenwel v. Abbott Music in this episode by Gyan Riley, Alex Overington, David Herman, Tobin Low and Jad Abumrad.   Archival interviews with Justice William O. Douglas come from the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections at Princeton University Library. Special thanks to Jerry Goldman and to Whittaker's clerks: Heywood Davis, Jerry Libin and James Adler. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

TO PODCAST #51 Willem Evenwel |Afrikaans| Programmer: What lessons did we not learn as kids? Ek ken vir Willem meer as 10 jaar. Ons het op dieselfde dorp groot geword en in dieselfde kringe beweeg. Op Stellenbosch gedurende die 2000s, was dit gewoonlik Mystics, Bohemia, trance parties, etc. Toe ek Willem bel vir 'n Covid catch-up tune hy my van sy idee van 'lesse wat ons nie as kinders geleer was nie wat ons sou help vir adulthood' bevoorbeeld hoe om 'n ordentlike CV te design. Ons chat het gegaan rondom hoe Suid-Afrika en die wereld verander het soos ons volwassenes geword het wat beteken die skool curriculums en ons ouers se waardes nie ons gehelp het nie, miskien teen ons werk. Willem werk as 'n Program Manager vir 'n internasionale firma, maak musiek in sy vrye tyd, is onlangs getroud met sy pragtige vrou, speel indoor krieket en is 'n mens wie sy lewe tot die beste van sy vermoë probeer leef met 'n sterk waardesisteem.

As this is an election year, many people (including lawyers) are paying closer attention to election and voting rights. So what’s trending in election law and what could these developments mean for the upcoming American election? In this On the Road report recorded at the 2016 ABA Annual Meeting, Joe Patrice interviews C. Robert Heath and Ben Griffith, contributing authors to the book “America Votes! A Guide to Modern Election Law and Voting Rights.” They begin by talking about Evenwel vs. Abbott, a case in which the Supreme Court allowed states to use total population, not those who can vote, when drawing legislative districts. They then address the state of voter identification cases and whether rigid voter ID laws have a significant impact on certain classes of people. Robert, Ben, and Joe finish by discussing political and racial gerrymandering, which is likely the root cause of the U.S. Congressional gridlock. C. Robert Heath is an attorney with Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta where he practices complex governmental litigation and counseling, election law and voting rights, open government and ethics, and many other areas of law. Robert has written and presented extensively about the topic of electoral law. Ben Griffith is the principal of Griffith Law Firm in Oxford, Missouri. He focuses his practice on federal and state civil litigation, with emphasis on voting rights and election law, civil rights, public sector insurance coverage, and environmental law.

In Evenwel v. Abbott, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution’s one-person, one-vote rule allows States to draw their legislative districts based on total population. In doing so, the Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the one-person, one-vote rule protects eligible voters and thus required States to equalize the population of eligible voters, not total population. The Court explicitly declined to resolve whether States may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population. -- Our experts analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision and reviewed the constitutional history underlying the one-person, one-vote doctrine. They discussed the impact of Evenwel on future redistricting decisions, including the Court’s willingness to accept legislative districts based on eligible voters. -- Featuring: J. Michael Connolly, Counsel, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC and Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.

Last week, the court decided one of this term’s blockbuster cases — a case that could affect the future of affirmative action in this country. The plaintiff was Abigail Fisher, a white woman, who said she was rejected from the University of Texas because the university unfairly considered race as one of many factors when evaluating applicants. And while Fisher’s claims were the focus of the case, the story behind how she ended up in front of the Supreme Court is a lot more complicated. Edward Blum is the director of the Project on Fair Representation (AEI)  On this episode, we visit Edward Blum, a 64-year-old “legal entrepreneur” and former stockbroker who has become something of a Supreme Court matchmaker — He takes an issue, finds the perfect plaintiff, matches them with lawyers, and works his way to the highest court in the land. He’s had remarkable success, with 6 cases heard before the Supreme Court, including that of Abigail Fisher. We also head to Houston, Texas, where in 1998, an unusual 911 call led to one of the most important LGBT rights decisions in the Supreme Court’s history. John Lawrence (L) and Tyron Garner (R) at the 2004 Pride Parade in Houston (J.D. Doyle/Houston LGBT History) Mitchell Katine (L) introduces Tyron Garner (Middle) and John Lawrence (R) at a rally celebrating the court's decision (J.D. Doyle/Houston LGBT History) The key links: - The website Edward Blum is using to find plaintiffs for a case he is building against Harvard University- Susan Carle's book on the history of legal ethics- Ari Berman's book on voting rights in America- An obituary for Tyron Garner when he died in 2006- An obituary for John Lawrence when he died in 2011- Dale Carpenter's book on the history of Lawrence v. Texas- A Lambda Legal documentary on the story of Lawrence v. Texas The key cases: - 1896: Plessy v. Ferguson- 1917: Buchanan v. Warley- 1962: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button- 1986: Bowers v. Hardwick- 1996: Bush v. Vera- 2003: Lawrence v. Texas- 2009: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder- 2013: Shelby County v. Holder- 2013: Fisher v. University of Texas (1)- 2016: Evenwel v. Abbott- 2016: Fisher v. University of Texas (2) Special thanks to Ari Berman. His book Give Us the Ballot, and his reporting for The Nation, were hugely helpful in reporting this episode.   More Perfect is funded in part by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

Last week, the court decided one of this term’s blockbuster cases — a case that could affect the future of affirmative action in this country. The plaintiff was Abigail Fisher, a white woman, who said she was rejected from the University of Texas because the university unfairly considered race as one of many factors when evaluating applicants. And while Fisher’s claims were the focus of the case, the story behind how she ended up in front of the Supreme Court is a lot more complicated. Edward Blum is the director of the Project on Fair Representation (AEI) On this episode, we visit Edward Blum, a 64-year-old “legal entrepreneur” and former stockbroker who has become something of a Supreme Court matchmaker — He takes an issue, finds the perfect plaintiff, matches them with lawyers, and works his way to the highest court in the land. He’s had remarkable success, with 6 cases heard before the Supreme Court, including that of Abigail Fisher. We also head to Houston, Texas, where in 1998, an unusual 911 call led to one of the most important LGBTQ rights decisions in the Supreme Court’s history. John Lawrence (L) and Tyron Garner (R) at the 2004 Pride Parade in Houston (J.D. Doyle/Houston LGBT History) Mitchell Katine (L) introduces Tyron Garner (Middle) and John Lawrence (R) at a rally celebrating the court's decision (J.D. Doyle/Houston LGBT History) The key links: - The website Edward Blum is using to find plaintiffs for a case he is building against Harvard University- Susan Carle's book on the history of legal ethics- An obituary for Tyron Garner when he died in 2006- An obituary for John Lawrence when he died in 2011- Dale Carpenter's book on the history of Lawrence v. Texas- A Lambda Legal documentary on the story of Lawrence v. Texas The key voices: - Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation- Susan Carle, professor of law at the American University Washington College of Law- Dale Carpenter, professor of Law at the SMU Dedman School of Law- Mitchell Katine, lawyer at Katine & Nechman L.L.P. - Lane Lewis, chair of the Harris County Democratic Party- Sheila Jackson Lee, Congresswoman for the 18th district of Texas The key cases: - 1896: Plessy v. Ferguson- 1917: Buchanan v. Warley- 1962: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button- 1986: Bowers v. Hardwick- 1996: Bush v. Vera- 2003: Lawrence v. Texas- 2009: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder- 2013: Shelby County v. Holder- 2013: Fisher v. University of Texas (1)- 2016: Evenwel v. Abbott- 2016: Fisher v. University of Texas (2) Special thanks to Ari Berman. His book Give Us the Ballot, and his reporting for The Nation, were hugely helpful in reporting this episode.   More Perfect is funded in part by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

When Chief Justice Earl Warren was asked at the end of his career, “What was the most important case of your tenure?”, there were a lot of answers he could have given. After all, he had presided over some of the most important decisions in the court’s history — cases that dealt with segregation in schools, the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, just to name a few. But his answer was a surprise: He said, “Baker v. Carr,” a 1962 redistricting case.  On this episode of More Perfect, we talk about why this case was so important; important enough, in fact, that it pushed one Supreme Court justice to a nervous breakdown, brought a boiling feud to a head, put one justice in the hospital, and changed the course of the Supreme Court — and the nation — forever. Associate Justice William O. Douglas (L) and Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter (R) (Harris & Ewing Photography/Library of Congress) Top Row (left-right): Charles E. Whittaker, John M. Harlan,William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart. Bottom Row (left-right): William O. Douglas, Hugo L. Black, Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, Tom C. Clark. (Library of Congress)    Associate Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Whittaker at his desk in his chambers. (Heywood Davis)  The key links: - Biographies of Charles Evans Whittaker, Felix Frankfurter, and William O. Douglas from Oyez- A biography of Charles Evans Whittaker written by Craig Alan Smith- A biography of Felix Frankfurter written by H.N. Hirsch- A biography of William O. Douglas written by Bruce Allen Murphy- A book about the history of "one person, one vote" written by J. Douglas Smith- A roundtable discussion on C-SPAN about Baker v. Carr The key voices: - Craig Smith, Charles Whittaker's biographer and Professor of History and Political Science at California University of Pennsylvania - Tara Grove, Professor of Law and Robert and Elizabeth Scott Research Professor at William & Mary Law School- Louis Michael Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown Law- Guy-Uriel Charles, Charles S. Rhyne Professor of Law at Duke Law- Samuel Issacharoff, Bonnie and Richard Reiss Professor of Constitutional Law, NYU Law- J. Douglas Smith, author of "On Democracy's Doorstep"- Alan Kohn, former Supreme Court clerk for Charles Whittaker, 1957 Term- Kent Whittaker, Charles Whittaker's son- Kate Whittaker, Charles Whittaker's granddaughter The key cases: - 1962: Baker v. Carr- 2000: Bush v. Gore- 2016: Evenwel v. Abbott Music in this episode by Gyan Riley, Alex Overington, David Herman, Tobin Low and Jad Abumrad.  More Perfect is funded in part by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Archival interviews with Justice William O. Douglas come from the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections at Princeton University Library. Special thanks to Whittaker's clerks: Heywood Davis, Jerry Libin and James Adler. Also big thanks to Jerry Goldman at Oyez.

On April 4, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Evenwel v. Abbott. As required by the Texas Constitution, the Texas legislature reapportioned its senate districts after the publication of the 2010 census, formally adopting an interim plan that had been put in place for the 2012 primaries. Plaintiffs, who are registered Texas voters, sued the Texas governor and secretary of state, asserting that the redistricting plan violated the one-person, one-vote principle of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, by failing to apportion districts to equalize both total population and voter population. A three-judge district court ruled in favor of the state officials. -- On appeal, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “one-person, one-vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter population when apportioning state legislative districts. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the three-judge district court. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that constitutional history, precedent, and longstanding practice demonstrate that a state may draw its legislative districts based on total population. The Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined Justice GInsburg’s opinion for the Court. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Justice Thomas joined except as to Part III-B. -- To discuss the case, we have Andrew Grossman, who is Partner at Baker & Hostetler, LLP.

At the American Bar Association’s Midyear Meeting, there was a discussion about Evenwel v. Abbott, a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that will determine the constitutionality of a Texas legislative redistricting plan that could have extensive implications if the state’s approach is overturned. In this episode of Special Reports, Laurence Colletti interviews presenters Dr. John Eastman and Thomas Saenz about Evenwel v. Abbott, the issues of voting rights and federalism, and the impact of Justice Scalia’s death on this important case. Eastman and Saenz then debate their opposing viewpoints on how to redistrict: according to population or according to eligible voters in a given district. Dr. John Eastman, from the Chapman University Fowler School of Law in Orange, California, is a former Supreme Court Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1999 he founded the Center for Constitutional Jurist Prudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute. Their mission is to recover the principles of the American Founding in their Constitutional Jurist Prudence. Thomas Saenz is president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a national civil rights legal organization whose mission is to promote the civil and constitutional rights of all latinos living in the United States. They focus on the areas of employment, education, immigrant rights, and voting rights.

On December 8, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Evenwel v. Abbott. As required by the Texas Constitution, the Texas legislature reapportioned its senate districts after the publication of the 2010 census, formally adopting an interim plan that had been put in place for the 2012 primaries. Plaintiffs, who are registered Texas voters, sued the Texas governor and secretary of state, asserting that the redistricting plan violated the one-person, one-vote principle of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, by failing to apportion districts to equalize both total population and voter population. A three-judge district court ruled in favor of the state officials. -- On appeal, the question before the Supreme Court is whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “one-person, one-vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter population when apportioning state legislative districts. -- To discuss the case, we have Andrew Grossman, who is Associate at Baker & Hostetler, and Adjunct Scholar at The Cato Institute.

A day late, but we’re here. Alex and I discuss several wildly different topics. We hit the subhuman ISIS and their recent fatwa, the Evenwel v. Abbott “One Person One Vote” SCOTUS case, the ridiculousness of Scalia being branded a … Continue reading →

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case that could radically change how legislative lines are drawn in America. In Evenwel v. Abbott, the Supreme Court might order states to draw boundaries using voters instead of total people. This change in the rule could have a significant impact on the future representation of America’s fast-growing urban and suburban communities, and of Latinos in particular. In this candid discussion, experts and practitioners explore the implications of the Evenwel case, the tremendous impact it could have on the Latino community, and how other recent Supreme Court cases could fundamentally reshape the redistricting landscape.

Evenwel v. Abbott | 12/08/15 | Docket #: 14-940

On this episode, we review five of the Court’s most controversial cases this Term thus far. Mullenix v. Luna - The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” In this case, the Fifth Circuit held that Mullenix violated the clearly established rule that a police officer may not “ ‘use deadly force against a fleeing felon who does not pose a sufficient threat of harm to the officer or others.’” Was the Fifth Circuit correct in its statment of the law?Williams v. Pennsylvania - Are the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated where the presiding Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court declines to recuse himself in a capital case where he had personally approved the decision to pursue capital punishment against Petitioner in his prior capacity as elected District Attorney and continued to head the District Attorney's Office that defended the death verdict on appeal; where, in his State Supreme Court election campaign, the Chief Justice expressed strong support for capital punishment, with reference to the number of defendants he had "sent" to death row, including Petitioner; and where he then, as Chief Justice, reviewed a ruling by the state post- conviction court that his office committed prosecutorial misconduct under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when it prosecuted and sought death against Petitioner?Heffernan v. Paterson - Whether the First Amendment bars the government from demoting a public employee based on a supervisor's perception that the employee supports a political candidate.Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole - Does a court err by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government’s interest in promoting health?Little Sisters v. Burwell (and the consolidated cases) - Does the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?Next week, we will continue our coverage of the Court’s top cases this Term, with a review of the oral arguments in Evenwel v. Abbott, an important voting rights case, and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, an affirmative action case that the Court is hearing for a second time.

Can the Supreme Court handle social science evidence in election law cases? Will lack of good data determine the outcome of the Supreme Court's upcoming one person, one vote decision in Evenwel v. Abbott? What role will and should evidence play in assessing questions such as the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold's soft money ban or Texas's strict voter identification law. On Episode 6 of the ELB Podcast, we talk to law professor and political scientist Nate Persily of Stanford Law School, one of the country’s leading redistricting and election law experts.

When we do a Supreme Court term preview, we of course turn to Slate’s amazing Dahlia Lithwick, and then we proceed not to discuss the upcoming term. We begin with a whirlwind fourteen minutes of feedback on, among other things, an index for the show, the Cyberloquium, the potential for classes in our goofy style, the North Dakotan listening trend, listening while cooking, the possibility of a Dworkin episode, surname vs. last name, the use of “antepenultimate,” the dearth of recent speed trap law discussion, and a tease further discussion of law and morals. With Dahlia, we then talk about the Supreme Court’s new rule on standing in line for oral arguments, what it means when the Court does things that are not manifest in written opinions, the idea of Supreme Court previews, and looking ahead. This show’s links: Dahlia Lithwick’s page, featuring her recent writing and podcasting, at Slate Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick Oral Argument and the Oral Argument Index The brand new Narrowest Grounds blog The Supreme Court’s new rule against “line standers” for members of the Supreme Court bar; Oral Argument 55: Cronut Lines (guest Dave Fagundes) Joan Biskupic, Janet Roberts and John Shiffman, At America’s Court of Last Resort, a Handful of Lawyers Now Dominates the Docket The Court’s new repository of PDFs of its web citations and a page featuring samples of the way it will highlight post-hand-down revisions of its opinions Justice Breyer on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert A Conversation with Elena Kagan Oyez, which hosts audio and (interactive) transcripts of decision announcements as well as oral arguments Oyez’s audio for Glossip v. Gross Oral Argument 22: Nine Brains in a Vat (guest Dahlia Lithwick), talking about hand-down days Lani Guinier, Supreme Cout 2007 Term Foreword: Demosprudence Through Dissent Jill Duffy and Elizabeth Lambert, Dissents from the Bench: A Compilation of Oral Dissents by U.S. Supreme Court Justices (containing a list of all dissents from the bench since 1969 and updated through summer 2014) William Blake and Hans Hacker, 'The Brooding Spirit of the Law': Supreme Court Justices Reading Dissents from the Bench Supreme Court Opinion Announcements: An Underutilized Resource (noting Justice Stevens’ oral dissent in Citizens United replaced a comparison between “Tokyo Rose” and “Allied commanders” to one between “Tokyo Rose” and “General MacArthur”) Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, The Supreme Court’s Most Important Cases of the New Term SCOTUSblog page for Evenwel v. Abbott, the new one-person, one-vote case Special Guest: Dahlia Lithwick.

October 5th will mark the first day of the 2015 Supreme Court term. Thus far, the Court's docket includes major cases involving the death penalty, affirmative action, unions, civil asset forfeiture, and more. -- Notable cases include Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, which concerns pre-certification mootness; Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, which concerns class certification where statistical methods are used to establish liability and damages; Spokeo v. Robins, which concerns Article III standing and statutory damages; Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which concerns affirmative action in admissions; Evenwel v. Abbott, which concerns redistricting law; Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which concerns teacher unions; and Kansas v. Gleason, Kansas v. Carr, Montgomery v. Louisiana, Foster v. Humphrey, and Hurst v. Florida, which all concern the death penalty. -- In addition to these cases and others, which may include abortion and contraceptive mandate questions, the panelists will discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- Featuring: Prof. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Mr. John Elwood, Partner at Vinson & Elkins; Mr. Neal K. Katyal, Partner at Hogan Lovells; Prof. John F. Stinneford, Professor of Law and Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Center at Levin College of Law, University of Florida; and Mr. Ed Whelan, President of Ethics & Public Policy Center. Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, The New York Times.

October 5th will mark the first day of the 2015 Supreme Court term. Thus far, the Court's docket includes major cases involving the death penalty, affirmative action, unions, civil asset forfeiture, and more. -- Notable cases include Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, which concerns pre-certification mootness; Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, which concerns class certification where statistical methods are used to establish liability and damages; Spokeo v. Robins, which concerns Article III standing and statutory damages; Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which concerns affirmative action in admissions; Evenwel v. Abbott, which concerns redistricting law; Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which concerns teacher unions; and Kansas v. Gleason, Kansas v. Carr, Montgomery v. Louisiana, Foster v. Humphrey, and Hurst v. Florida, which all concern the death penalty. -- In addition to these cases and others, which may include abortion and contraceptive mandate questions, the panelists will discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- Featuring: Prof. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Mr. John Elwood, Partner at Vinson & Elkins; Mr. Neal K. Katyal, Partner at Hogan Lovells; Prof. John F. Stinneford, Professor of Law and Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Center at Levin College of Law, University of Florida; and Mr. Ed Whelan, President of Ethics & Public Policy Center. Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, The New York Times.

Richard L. Hasen is Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine School of Law. His areas of expertise are election law, legislation, remedies, and torts. In this episode of UCI Law Talks, he discusses the dynamic challenges posed by battles to reshape election law, including the upcoming Supreme Court case, Evenwel v. Abbott, deciding the “one person, one vote” issue. Find out what he dubs a potential “political earthquake.” http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/

Rick Hasen discusses the dynamic challenges posed by battles to reshape election law, including the upcoming Supreme Court case, Evenwel v. Abbott, deciding the “one person, one vote” issue. Find out what he dubs a potential “political earthquake.”

On this episode, we discuss the grant of review this week to the case of Evenwel v. Abbott. In Reynolds v. Sims (1964) the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a “one-person, one-vote” principle. This principle requires that, “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.” In 2013, the Texas Legislature enacted a State Senate map creating districts that, while roughly equal in terms of total population, grossly malapportioned voters. Appellants, who live in Senate districts significantly overpopulated with voters, brought a one-person, one-vote challenge, which the three-judge district court below dismissed for failure to state a claim. The district court held that Appellants’ constitutional challenge is a judicially unreviewable political question.The question presented is whether the “one-person, one-vote” principle of the Fourteenth Amendment creates a judicially enforceable right ensuring that the districting process does not deny voters an equal vote.

Thema: Boodschappers van de koning Punt 1: Opwekking om de Heere te dienen, Punt 2: Afwijzing der mens, Punt 3: Wonderen van de hand Gods, Bijbeltekst Omschrijving: [6a] De lopers dan gingen heen met de brieven van de hand des konings en zijner vorsten, door gans Israël en Juda, en naar het gebod des konings, zeggende: Gij kinderen Israëls, bekeert u tot den HEERE, den God Abrahams, Izaks en Israëls; [10b] doch zij belachten hen en bespotten hen. [11] Evenwel verootmoedigden zich sommigen van Aser en Manasse en van Zebulon, en kwamen te Jeruzalem. [12] Ook was de hand Gods in Juda, hun enerlei hart gevende, dat zij het gebod des konings en der vorsten deden, naar het woord des HEEREN.