Case Summary

After the 2010 census, Texas enacted a state Senate redistricting plan with a max population deviation of 8.04% based off total population figures but, when measured using eligible-voter population figures, the deviation was more than 40%. On April 21, 2014, a group of Texas voters filed a federal lawsuit against various state election officials challenging Texas’s state Senate redistricting plan as violating the 14th Amendment’s one person, one vote requirement, arguing the use of total population to draw districts diluted the voting strength of certain voters but not others. They sought an injunction barring the plan from use in future elections and for the court to require a new, properly apportioned plan be implemented.

• On April 4, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the plan as constitutional, holding the constitution allows, but doesn’t require, states to draw legislative districts on the basis of total population. The Court explained that when Congress was debating what would become the 14th Amendment, it explicitly rejected proposals that would require apportionment based on voter population since total population better served the principle of “representational equality,” and the Court declined to interrupt what is now a longstanding practice of states complying with one person, one vote using total population.

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