evenwel v abbott

A Rhode Island city that counts inmates, but doesn't represent them, violates the "one person, one vote" principle.
Lately, Ed Blum's name has been everywhere. At least, when it comes to Supreme Court cases. Whether it is affirmative action, voting rights, or redistricting, Blum has been leading a well-funded effort to limit who has representation in our democracy.
It is hard to believe that on this very day 48 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on a balcony in Memphis, Tennessee.
Today's ruling is a huge win for our democracy. It affirms the principle that everyone counts and everyone deserves representation.
A different ruling would have shifted power away from Democratic-leaning areas.
I don't dismiss the arguments put forth by Evenwel -- far from it. Is it in keeping with the constitutional values of America to have the presence of undocumented immigrants in urban areas, for example, dilute the vote of rural voters?
If a majority of the justices get their way, the rules of the democratic process could get tougher than ever before.
The biggest voting rights case of the year may depend on a few sentences that never saw the light of day -- until now.
Our nation has a vital stake in the well-being of its children. But all these efforts to subvert the democratic process continue and we must fight to stop them in every form.
A win for conservatives may turn on a federal survey they tried to eliminate.
At the center of Evenwel v. Abbott is a math problem: How do we calculate the size of legislative districts? The answer to that question depends on how we define the principle of "one person, one vote."
The same conservatives who succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to gut the Voting Rights Act last year are now attacking the principle of one person, one vote. The purpose of both maneuvers is the same, to help Republicans win elections by diluting or suppressing Democratic votes, in particular the votes of black and brown people.