This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in an important case dealing with the long-recognized “one person, one vote” standard — historically, the fundamental principle when drawing election maps. Any dilution of the “one person, one vote” standard will cause an election map to be declared unconstitutional.

In Evenwel v. Abbott, two Texas voters argue that voting areas should be drawn based on the total number of eligible voters, instead of total population, which is the current practice. On the other hand, opponents argue that elected officials should represent all citizens, not just those eligible to vote, since there is both a voting interest and a representation interest at stake. If the Court rules in favor of the Texas voters, the procedure for drawing legally compliant voting boundaries may become uncertain, especially since demographers have cautioned there is no existing database accurately measuring only eligible voters.

While some observers predict the status quo will prevail due to practical realities, local political jurisdictions may be greatly impacted both legally and financially if the Court rules that voting areas should be drawn based on eligible voter population rather than total general population. This is especially true for those California cities, school districts and special districts that recently transitioned to a district election system to avoid any potential liability under the California Voting Rights Act.