Case Summary

When Texas redrew its legislative districts following the 2010 census, it adopted a State Senate map that had a maximum population deviation of 8.04% when measured using total population as a base, but when measured using voter-population as a base the maximum deviation was more than 40%. A group of voters in districts with large eligible and registered-voter populations filed a federal lawsuit against various state election officials, alleging that basing apportionment on total population diluted their votes as compared to voters in other Senate Districts, thereby violating the one-person, one vote principle under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs sought an injunction barring the State from using the existing Senate map in favor of a map that would equalize the voter populations in each district.

In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant-state officials, holding that the constitution permits, but does not require, States and localities to apportion and draw their legislative districts on the basis of total population. The Court explained that when debating what would become the 14th Amendment, Congress explicitly rejected proposals to apportion House seats to States on the basis of voter population because they recognized that a total-population baseline best served the principle of "representational equality." Furthermore, it is now longstanding practice for States to establish legislative and congressional districts, and for courts to evaluate those districts' compliance with one person, one vote, on the basis of total population, and the Court declined to adopt voter-eligible-based apportionment as a constitutional command when doing so would upset such a widespread, well-functioning approach.

Significance: The one person, one vote constitutional principle does not require states to use voter-eligible population as the basis for reapportioning legislative districts.

Case Library

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division - 1:14-cv-00335 (Evenwel v. Perry)

• Original Complaint - 4/21/14
• Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - 5/15/14
• Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - 5/29/14
• Defendants' Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - 6/5/14
• Transcript of Motions Hearing - 6/25/14
• Motion to Intervene by The Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, et al. - 7/3/14
• Proposed Defendant-Intervenors' Answer - 7/3/14
• Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Motion to Intervene - 7/14/14
• Proposed Defendant-Intervenors' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Intervene - 7/24/14
• Supplement to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Intervene - 8/11/14
• Defendant-Intervenors' Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Opposition to Motion to Intervene - 8/22/14
• Memorandum Opinion & Order - 11/5/14
• Final Judgment - 11/5/14
• Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal - 12/4/14

U.S. Supreme Court - No. 14-940 [136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016)]

• Appellants' Jurisdictional Statement - 2/2/15
• Docket Placement Letter - 2/4/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae CATO Institute & Reason Foundation in Support of Appellants - 3/5/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Tennessee State Legislators & The Judicial Education Project in Support of Appellants - 3/6/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Appellants - 3/6/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Southeastern Legal Foundation in Support of Appellants - 3/6/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae Judicial Watch, Inc. & Allied Educational Foundation in Support of Appellants - 3/6/15
• Appellees' Motion to Dismiss or Affirm - 4/6/15
• Appellants' Opposition to Appellees' Motion to Dismiss or Affirm - 4/20/15
• Order Noting Probable Jurisdiction - 6/3/15
• Brief for Appellants - 7/31/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae American Civil Rights Union in Support of Appellants - 8/5/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. in Support of Appellants - 8/7/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Project 21 in Support of Appellants - 8/7/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Tennessee State Legislators & The Judicial Education Project in Support of Appellants - 8/7/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae CATO Institute & Reason Foundation in Support of Appellants - 8/7/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Appellants - 8/7/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae Demographers Peter A. Morrison, et al., in Support of Appellants - 8/7/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in Support of Appellants - 8/7/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute in Support of Appellants - 8/7/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae Judicial Watch, Inc. & Allied Educational Foundation in Support of Appellants - 8/7/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae City of Yakima, Washington in Support of Appellants - 8/7/15
• Brief for Appellees - 9/18/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union & the ACLU of Texas in Support of Appellees - 9/24/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Common Cause in Support of Appellees and Affirmance - 9/24/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, et al., in Support of Appellees - 9/24/15
• Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Democratic National Committee in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae Former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae The Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law in Support of Appellees and Affirmance - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae Texas Senators in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Carl E. Heastie in His Official Capacity as Speaker of the New York State Assembly in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE), et al., in Support of Affirmance - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae The City of New York in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae The Hispanic National Bar Association, et al., in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae The Children's Defense Fund, et al., in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae Hawaii Reapportionment Case Plaintiffs (David P. Brostrom, Andrew Walden) in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae State of New York and Twenty Other States in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae City of Los Angeles, et al., in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Harris County, Texas, in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae Nathaniel Persily, et al., in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - 9/25/15
• Brief of Amici Curiae The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, et al., in Support of Appellees - 9/25/15
• Reply Brief of Appellants - 10/19/15
• Opinion - 4/4/16
• Order - 4/4/16