“One Person, One Vote” Wins Surprising Supreme Court Victory


The most recent attempt to increase the voting weight of Republicans was very creative. A couple of Texas residents claimed that instead of counting the entire population when states perform redistricting, they should count only the voting-age population. Or maybe only registered voters. Or maybe some other method that grossly favors Republicans.

This case got decided today, and since the court now has only eight members, it ended up in a 4-4 tie, which is a relief for…

No, wait. The Texans lost unanimously, 8-0. That’s unexpected. And to add to the bizarreness, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the court’s opinion, which was largely based on an originalist view of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment:

What constitutional history and our prior decisions strongly suggest, settled practice confirms. Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 States and countless local local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries.

I guess miracles can happen after all. I don’t know what the next clever assault on the voting rights of Democrats will be, but this case suggests that maybe the Supreme Court has been pushed as far as it’s willing to go down this road. New strategy, please.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate