Washington:
Should each person's vote carry equal weight? The US Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a conservative challenge to how Texas draws legislative districts, in a case with the potential to sway the political balance of power.
Plaintiffs Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger claim that the way voters are currently counted -- based on total population rather than eligible voters alone -- violates the "one person, one vote" principle affirmed by the Supreme Court for half a century.
In the United States, tens of millions of minors, immigrants, prisoners, ex-convicts and mentally disabled people are barred from voting but are still counted to set electoral districts.
If a state bases its electoral districting on the total population, people who are ineligible to vote are counted in the process.
These ineligible populations are usually present in larger numbers in urban areas.
As a result, each eligible voter in those areas proportionally has greater clout -- since it takes fewer voters to elect one representative to Congress.
That usually helps Democrats.
Rural areas, which tend to lean Republican, have greater percentages of eligible voters per district -- meaning that each person's vote is effectively diluted.
US federal law stipulates that electoral districts have a similar amount of inhabitants, with no more than 10 percent variation.
But the plaintiffs' attorney William Consovoy spoke of a discrepancy of "nearly 50 percent" in some cases.
The plaintiffs are asking the nine Supreme Court justices to order redistricting that only takes eligible voters into account.
Political ConsequencesThe justices appeared skeptical of the Texas challenge.
"What we actually want is a kind of democracy where people, whether they vote or not, are going to receive a proportion of representation in Congress," said Justice Stephen Breyer, seen as a progressive force in the court.
At least two of his fellow justices worried about the practical consequences of changing the rule, as it would require redrawing districts in many different cities and regions, including California, Chicago, Miami and New York.
Political and race concerns underlie the plaintiff's case.
If the justices back Evenwel and Pfenninger, urban districts that are home to many non-voters, including many Hispanics, would be fewer and larger.
In contrast, rural and suburban districts, which are traditionally more conservative and have a greater white majority, would be smaller in size and more numerous.
And the Democrats, who have greater backing among immigrants, would lose out significantly to their Republican foes.
Civil rights leaders and minority groups back maintaining the status quo.
Nina Perales of MALDEF said the reform would negatively impact large families, which are especially prevalent among Latinos.
"Our representatives represent people," she said.
"Representatives don't represent land. They don't represent acres. They don't represent counties."