One person, one vote: SCOTUS to tell us what it means

[publicunofficial]

If a person is 16 at the time of the census, he would then be essentially disenfranchised for the first 8 years after he becomes a voter. I'd be very surprised if the court doesn't shoot this case down.

[publicunofficial]

The Constitution is pretty clearly against using anything other than pure census data to determine electoral votes and the Supreme Court has always followed it (No using population estimates to account for people who don't respond to the census, ect.). Does it really make sense for it to be suddenly okay for districts?