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

[muon2]

The US already uses different counts for apportionment and redistricting. Apportionment includes overseas military and other officials attributed to a specific state. Those persons are not assigned to any census block, so they don't count for redistricting. I don't see any reason that SCOTUS couldn't decide that persons ineligible to vote are also withheld from the redistricting count.

The order of magnitude of that discrepancy (which is unavoidable), and to a lessor extent the discrepancy between CD size of a one CD state up or down as compared to multi CD states (also unavoidable), is relatively minor as compared to the avoidable discrepancy that would be introduced by virtue of counting non citizens for purposes of inter state allocations, but not intra state allocations.

The present discrepancy is avoidable, since overseas military personnel could be assigned to their last home state address, in much the same way as some states are doing with their prison populations.

I understand that there is a matter of degree, and I am not advocating for a particular standard, but if SCOTUS finds for the plaintiffs in the question of redistricting, I think they can read the constitutional language on apportionment as a strict count of all persons in the state. Though I will be curious to see the arguments, it does seem that the inconsistency today is the use of CVAP to count for VRA purposes, but not for the overall district population.

[Torie]

The US already uses different counts for apportionment and redistricting. Apportionment includes overseas military and other officials attributed to a specific state. Those persons are not assigned to any census block, so they don't count for redistricting. I don't see any reason that SCOTUS couldn't decide that persons ineligible to vote are also withheld from the redistricting count.

The order of magnitude of that discrepancy (which is unavoidable), and to a lessor extent the discrepancy between CD size of a one CD state up or down as compared to multi CD states (also unavoidable), is relatively minor as compared to the avoidable discrepancy that would be introduced by virtue of counting non citizens for purposes of inter state allocations, but not intra state allocations.

The present discrepancy is avoidable, since overseas military personnel could be assigned to their last home state address, in much the same way as some states are doing with their prison populations.

I understand that there is a matter of degree, and I am not advocating for a particular standard, but if SCOTUS finds for the plaintiffs in the question of redistricting, I think they can read the constitutional language on apportionment as a strict count of all persons in the state. Though I will be curious to see the arguments, it does seem that the inconsistency today is the use of CVAP to count for VRA purposes, but not for the overall district population.

Well I suppose if it reaches SCOTUS, it could order that for federal election purposes, overseas residents should be assigned to a district. At least there is some objective standard. The VRA and CVAP is about statistical estimates, which makes sense, since the standard of electing a representative of a minority's choice is all about statistical estimates, rather than hard numbers. However, apportionment presumably is all about hard numbers, rather than estimates. And that is the rub here. If SCOTUS goes the CVAP route, presumably it would have to order the census bureau to do citizenship counts next time. Otherwise, apportionment is based on estimates, and not hard numbers, which seems to me something the Court would be most uncomfortable in doing.

This data gathering problem was brought up more than once, in this quite interesting radio discussion with two quite erudite academics discussing this issue.  I think it is worth listening to. Interestingly, neither academic mentioned Brittain33's insight about the discrepancy we are talking about here, as between CD's in different states which get more representation or less depending on how many non citizens are out there percentage wise  in other CD's in the state as compared to other states. Maybe, as is typical, it is because legal types are just not very good at fathoming all of this rather esoteric mathematical gymnastics, as we all know here so well given Jimtex's awesome body of work on the mathematics of weighted voting, and the gross incompetence of the courts in using the correct mathematical formulas, or understanding the questionable assumptions underlying the voting power calculation in multi member districts, when adjudicating it.

[jimrtex]

Here is the effect of equalizing CVAP among the 31 Texas senate districts.  Positive numbers indicate the number of persons (in thousands) that would need to be added to a district to equalize the CVAP, negative numbers indicate the number of persons (in thousands) that would have to be shed.



Methodology: CVAP was calculated using the 2009-2013 ACS.  This slightly shifts the data past 2010, and also includes the deviation when creating districts (4% was really to wide when creating districts with 800,000 persons).  The difference between the CVAP of each district and the average of 522,582 was calculated.  This represents the adjustment needed to balance the CVAP.  This was then multiplied by the statewide ratio of total population:CVAP (1.58) to estimate the population adjustment.

This likely underestimates the adjustment, since for districts with a low citizen population, the ratio of total population:CVAP is higher (up to 2.17).  The ratio outside the edges of the district, which would be moved into the district, is probably lower, but not so low as the statewide average.   Similarly, districts with more adult citizens, the ratio of total population:CVAP is lower (down to 1.38).  The ratio along the edges of the district which would be moved to other districts may be somewhat lower.

Regional distribution:

DFW (10 districts, including 1, 2, 22, 30) 147K surplus.
Houston (10 districts, including 3, 4, 5, 18) 91K deficit.
Central (3 districts, 14, 25, 26) 213K surplus.
Border (5 districts, 19, 20, 21, 27, 29) 415K surplus.
West (3 districts, 24, 38, 31) 147K surplus.

If SD-1 is included in the Houston region, this gives the Houston region about a 5K surplus, and the DFW region a surplus of 51K.

In the adjusted Houston region, SD-3 and SD-4 move northward.  But this results in a massive northward shift of SD-15, which is turn displaced by SD-6 and SD-13, likely flipping SD-15.

In the DFW area, SD-9 and SD-12 can be balanced, and then the deficit in the Dallas County districts can be adjusted northward towards Collin County.  The senator from SD-2 lives in Dallas, so there will likely be lots of small adjustments to SD 23 to avoid large shifts.

SD-29 would push through the Big Bend, and SD-21 could move northward, contracting SD-19 into very much a San Antonio district.   Its deficit could be made up from the other Bexar county districts.

SD-20 and SD-27 are going to have to push northward, and probably require flipping Nueces into SD-27.  In turn SD-18 will go northward, while SD-5 moves towards the west.

[Torie]

Does with your calculations an Hispanic CD along the Rio Grande need to be lost? What happens to the Hispanic percentage of TX-23 (that marginal seat around San Antonio)?

[jimrtex]

Does with your calculations an Hispanic CD along the Rio Grande need to be lost? What happens to the Hispanic percentage of TX-23 (that marginal seat around San Antonio)?

TX-19 isn't really a border district, despite having the longest border.  Before 2010 it extended into El Paso County.  In 2011, TX-29 took in about 60,000 in the remainder of El Paso County and 40,000 in the big chunk of sparsely populated counties to the east.

Texas grew at 20% between 2000-2010, which means areas below that are losing legislative share, even if they were gaining congressional share nationally.  This seems to confuse people, as they try to maintain 4 senate districts in West Texas.

The 5 senate districts on the border already stretch as far north as Austin.  So the logical solution is to move SD-19 off the border, distributing its western portion among SD-29 and SD-21.  This keeps the four border incumbents in their districts in El Paso, Webb, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties.

Cornyn and Abbott carried SD-19 and SD-20 by slim margins.  Stripping the western part of SD-19, probably moves it more D.  Moving SD-21 northwestward, would permit SD-20 to also take in population to the west.  The reason that SD-20 is competitive is because it includes Nueces (Corpus Christi), while Hidalgo on the border is split.

SD-25 is not marginal (SD-23 is south Dallas).

[jimrtex]

This data gathering problem was brought up more than once, in this quite interesting radio discussion with two quite erudite academics discussing this issue.  I think it is worth listening to. Interestingly, neither academic mentioned Brittain33's insight about the discrepancy we are talking about here, as between CD's in different states which get more representation or less depending on how many non citizens are out there percentage wise  in other CD's in the state as compared to other states. Maybe, as is typical, it is because legal types are just not very good at fathoming all of this rather esoteric mathematical gymnastics, as we all know here so well given Jimtex's awesome body of work on the mathematics of weighted voting, and the gross incompetence of the courts in using the correct mathematical formulas, or understanding the questionable assumptions underlying the voting power calculation in multi member districts, when adjudicating it.

The data gathering problem should not be an issue before the SCOTUS.  There is solid evidence that there is a 59% discrepancy of the value of a vote for senate between SD-3 and SD-6.

The SCOTUS can't say at this point that redistricting is a political question and non-judiciable, or that there is no right to vote that is subject to equal protection.  They made their choice, right or wrong 50 years ago.

Texas has 100% VAP and racial information to the block level, which means that they can make more accurate estimates than might be made by using the ACS alone.  It is at least in the realm of conceivability that the census bureau can produce updated ACS data for adjusted boundaries.  They know the precise boundaries of the districts, and the precise location of their ACS samples.  Large scale changes required to equalize voting power would not bring in to play any confidentiality issues.

There are ACS estimates at the census tract level.  Those claiming an accurate estimate can not be made will argue that the districts are not comprised of census tracts, or that the error from census tracts are additive, which is false. 

A better solution would be for the federal government to issue ID cards and require that they be accepted for federal elections without a further registration step.  The federal government would feed changes in addresses to the state election authorities, to permit automatic update of voter registration rolls.  States could continue to augment their voting rolls with people without federal IDs, but why would they bother?

A voter would be more likely to update the address on a federal ID when they moved, even more likely than they are their mailing address or their driver's license both of which have some everyday utility.  If a voter only thinks that a voting address has quadrennial utility, there is no benefit in keeping it current.

This would also simplify overseas voting.  A voter could simply walk into a US embassy or US consulate, present their federal ID.  The official would electronically send a request to the appropriate state, which would send a ballot back, which would be voted, and then shipped back to the state.  This would eliminate the long lead times for election, which mostly serve the interests of the political class.

[Brittain33]

A better solution would be for the federal government to issue ID cards and require that they be accepted for federal elections without a further registration step. 

That's Phase 3 of Operation Jade Helm.

[Torie]

Sean Trende weighs in telling us what we already knew: changing the count to CVAP would breed more Pub seats. He also agrees with me, albeit without analysis, that SCOTUS is unlikely to go there, but then he also agrees with me, that it was surprising in the first instance that SCOTUS granted cert for the case given the absence of  conflicting decisions in the appellate circuits.

[Smid]

A better solution would be for the federal government to issue ID cards and require that they be accepted for federal elections without a further registration step.  The federal government would feed changes in addresses to the state election authorities, to permit automatic update of voter registration rolls.  States could continue to augment their voting rolls with people without federal IDs, but why would they bother?

A voter would be more likely to update the address on a federal ID when they moved, even more likely than they are their mailing address or their driver's license both of which have some everyday utility.  If a voter only thinks that a voting address has quadrennial utility, there is no benefit in keeping it current.

This is effectively how voter registration works in Australia: rolls are maintained at a state and federal level, but in effect, the states just copy the relevant bits from the federal roll.

[muon2]

A better solution would be for the federal government to issue ID cards and require that they be accepted for federal elections without a further registration step.  The federal government would feed changes in addresses to the state election authorities, to permit automatic update of voter registration rolls.  States could continue to augment their voting rolls with people without federal IDs, but why would they bother?

A voter would be more likely to update the address on a federal ID when they moved, even more likely than they are their mailing address or their driver's license both of which have some everyday utility.  If a voter only thinks that a voting address has quadrennial utility, there is no benefit in keeping it current.

This is effectively how voter registration works in Australia: rolls are maintained at a state and federal level, but in effect, the states just copy the relevant bits from the federal roll.

It seems that one could also do the reverse. With Real ID, the states have to maintain records that include residency and citizenship to comply with federal standards. Those are generally supposed to key in through the drivers license or equivalent state-issued ID. States with online voter registration like IL already link the license data to the election data to confirm registration eligibility. Linking across the states isn't a big step beyond that.

[jimrtex]

Sean Trende weighs in telling us what we already knew: changing the count to CVAP would breed more Pub seats. He also agrees with me, albeit without analysis, that SCOTUS is unlikely to go there, but then he also agrees with me, that it was surprising in the first instance that SCOTUS granted cert for the case given the absence of  conflicting decisions in the appellate circuits.

The problem is that the SCOTUS will likely decide that the districts are within the 10% safe harbor, and not recognize that under the fundamental OMOV principle that they are using the incorrect metric.  You might find the same to be the case in Hudson.

The New York case that he linked to is somewhat interesting.  One of the companion cases to Reynolds v Sims was WMCA v Lomenzo, which regarded the apportionment of the New York Senate.  The New York constitution (until 2014) required the senate to be apportioned on the basis of citizen population.  While the SCOTUS found the particular apportionment scheme used in New York to be unconstitutional, it did not find the use of citizen population to be invalid.  But it appears that New York has ignored its own constitution in that regard.

[jimrtex]

Montes v City of Yakima is an interesting case.  Yakima is about 40% Hispanic.  It is about 30% HVAP.  It is about 20% HCVAP.  And it appears to be about 10% Hispanic Voter.

A federal court has just ordered that the city council be elected from single-member districts.  The current city council has 3 members elected at large by position, and 4 members elected from single-member districts.  However, only the primaries are by district, with the general election of the district members being at large.

As part of their demonstration that Hispanics meet the first prong of the the Gingles test it was necessary to calculate the HCVAP percentage, which the plaintiffs did using the census in conjunction with the 5-year ACS, which provides citizenship data to the block group level.  The districts were drawn at the census block level (almost all election precincts are divided in creating the model districts).  Thus it was necessary to allocate the block group data to the census blocks within each block group.

The plaintiffs drew two districts among seven that barely had a majority HCVAP.  The defendants (city council) then got the plaintiff expert to calculate the CVAP in each district.  The districts range from 57% of the average district to 123% of the average, which is at least a 65% deviation range in CVAP.  The plaintiff's expert also drew a map that equalized CVAP, which as you might expect produced districts with a wide variation in population.

The city argued that the the plaintiffs failed the Gingles test because they ignored traditional districting criteria such as OMOV.  The district court ultimately decided that according to 9th Circuit rulings, that only total population can be used.

Incidentally, Judge Kozinski's dissent in the 9th Circuits decision in 918 F. 2d 763 Garza v. County of Los Angeles is a quite interesting read on the issue.

[jimrtex]

Calculation of HCVAP in Yakima

There were two ways of calculating the HCVAP offered by witnesses for the plaintiffs and the defense.

The districts being created are defined at the census block level.  This is partly due to to magnitude of the districts (about 13,000 persons each), and also the intricacy with which they were drawn, splitting almost all election precincts to barely get the HCVAP level to 50% in a couple of districts.

The census (PL 94-171) produces exact counts for ethnicity and race, and age (18+/18-).  The census does not have a citizenship question.

The American Community Survey (ACS) is based on sample data.  The data is collected on a monthly basis at a roughly 1/450 rate, and then summed over 5 years (60 months) to produce about a 13% sample, adequate to produce estimates, with reasonable errors, for small areas such as block groups, which have around 1000 persons.

Starting with a district that includes portions of a block group, from the full count we may determine:

VAP for the block group, HVAP for the portion of the block group in the district, and the relative share.
HVAP for the block group, HVAP for the portion of the block group in the district, and the relative share.
NHVAP for the block group, HVAP for the portion of the block group in the district, and the relative share.

For example, in Yakima, one block group had:

VAP  1748 in BG, 1277 in district, 467 outside district, 73% in district.
HVAP  1024 in BG, 875 in district, 149 outside district, 85% in district.
NHVAP  720 in BG, 402 in district, 318 outside district, 56% in district.

From the ACS, for the BG:

CVAP 1160
HCVAP 430
NHCVAP 730

The plaintiff's expert took the HCVAP for the block group, and multiplied it by the share of the HVAP within the district.   430 x .85 = 367 HCVAP in district.
He did the same for the NHCVAP = 730 x .56 = 408 NHCVAP in district.
He then calculated the HCVAP% in the district 367/(367+408) = 47.4%.

The defendant's expert took the the CVAP for the block group, and multiplied it by the share of the VAP in the district.  1160 x 73% = 847 CVAP in district.
The HCVAP% is then 367/847 = 43.3%.

It is quite likely that there is an error in the estimates due to a selection bias.  The area of the block group that was in the district had, according to the census had a HVAP% of 68.5% (875/1277).  The area of the block group outside the district had a HVAP% of 31.9% (149/467).  The difference in the two areas may have been reflected in the type of available housing.   For example, it might have been more expensive, or owner-occupied, while the other area had more rentals.  Non-citizens might be less able to qualify for that area, particularly if they did not have legal status.  Even if they did, their income might be less.  A family of 6 might choose a lower quality 2-bedroom apartment, over a higher quality 1-bedroom with the same rent.

But the estimate assumed that the ratio of district HCVAP/BG HCVAP is the same as district HVAP/to BG HVAP.  If that is not true, then it would have the effect of increasing the estimate of the HCVAP in the district, while reducing it outside.  In essence, Hispanic adult citizens living outside the district would be swapped for Hispanic adult non-citizens within the district.  There might be a similar effect for non-Hispanics, except the citizenship rate for non-Hispanics is much higher (Yakima has some Asians, blacks, and American Indians, but I suspect that the citizenship rate for blacks and American Indians is even higher than for whites)

Personally, I would have gone back to the census for the VAP, HVAP, and NHVAP, and then classified it as citizen or not based on the ACS.  The statistics for the plan mixed the total population from the census, with a CVAP from the ACS.

The Census Bureau will perform a custom tabulation from the ACS data for a fee, and so long as confidentiality is not at risk.  The data is tied to a census block, so given a definition of an area in terms of census blocks, it should be fairly trivial mechanically to produce a custom tabulation.  There might be an unwillingness to do so for very small areas, or where there are small tweaks, where an inference could be made.  But the census bureau already produces ACS data for irregular areas such as congressional district, legislative districts, places, school districts, and urban areas, which don't necessarily align with block groups.  That is, while it produces estimates for block groups, the estimates for other areas are not simple aggregations of block groups.

[jimrtex]

SCOTUS just granted cert to hear Evenwel v Abbott. The issue is whether the count should be 1) residents, which is how the count is done now, 2) just eligible voters or CVAP (citizens of voting age population, or 3) states can choose either one for redistricting purposes (raising an issue as to how the census bureau will do the counts).

Evenwel brief

I wonder how vigorously Texas will defend.

[jimrtex]

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

SCOTUS: Dunno.

SCOTUS decision in Evenwel v Abbott

I suspect that Justice Scalia was going to write the opinion, which would have more vigorously defended the idea that it was up to the states to determine what population base to use.

Ginsberg's opinion says that states may use total population. Lawyer's know what "may" means. The rest of the opinion then tries to extrapolate from congressional apportionment, which has nothing to do with legislative apportionment.

Rather than asking for rehearing, they avoid answering the question whether eligible voters may be used.

Alito's opinion is the one that Scalia would have written.

[Kevinstat]

The Maine Constitution's rules for legislative districts (as opposed to redistricting) (most of Article IV, Part First, Section 2 for the House, "dittoed" for the Senate in the Article IV, Part Second, Section 2, 1st paragraph) and county commissioner redistricting (Article IX, Section 25)... they both say that the number of Representatives (read "Senators" for the Senate) or commissioners "shall be divided" or that "the apportionment commission shall divide" that number "into the number of inhabitants of the {State exclusive of, county, excluding} foreigners not naturalized{,} according to the latest Federal Decennial Census or a {S,s}tate {C,c}ensus previously ordered by the Legislature to coincide with the Federal Decennial Census, to determine a mean population figure for each {Representative [read "Senatorial" for the Senate district rules], county commissioner} {D,d}istrict."  (Italics and boldface mine; the colors a way to quote similar text from two places in one quote.)

In practice, however, Maine has just used the "regular" census numbers (total population), with the part about excluding foreigners not naturalized from the count seemingly ignored.  This may be a case of the part I italicized in my above citation, and the fact that the census counts total population and that the state doesn't want to have to pay for its own census, rendering unfeasible (or arguably enough as unfeasible that people can get away with ignoring it) the part I put in boldface.  Can someone tell me what, if anything, Evenwell v. Abbott means for Maine (perhaps it's more what a different ruling would have meant).  Will this ruling help clear the way for the Census Bureau to do what it likes to call a "one number census"?  I assume a "one number census" is one where each census unit from block on up (and thus each possible district of any kind) has one number that is the its census population, period.  To jimrtex, would your guess as to the Scalia-written opinion of the court (Alito's concurrence) likely had any impact on Maine (making it clear that Maine didn't have a federal constitutional excuse not to follow it's state constitution)?

[jimrtex]

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

SCOTUS: Dunno.

SCOTUS decision in Evenwel v Abbott

I suspect that Justice Scalia was going to write the opinion, which would have more vigorously defended the idea that it was up to the states to determine what population base to use.

Ginsberg's opinion says that states may use total population. Lawyer's know what "may" means. The rest of the opinion then tries to extrapolate from congressional apportionment, which has nothing to do with legislative apportionment.

Rather than asking for rehearing, they avoid answering the question whether eligible voters may be used.

Alito's opinion is the one that Scalia would have written.

I really don't get how leaving the standard up to the states makes any sense with Baker v. Carr.  Equal population is required, but population can mean whatever the state legislature wants it to mean?  If you're going to do that, why not just go Thomas and overturn Baker v. Carr?

The Tennessee constitution and statute in question in Baker v Carr provided for apportionment on the basis of eligible voters. Tennessee had used eligible electors for a few decades, but then stopped.

You're suggesting that if Tennessee had actually updated its apportionment, the SCOTUS would/should have intervened and required that they use population equality?

[Torie]

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

SCOTUS: Dunno.

SCOTUS decision in Evenwel v Abbott

I suspect that Justice Scalia was going to write the opinion, which would have more vigorously defended the idea that it was up to the states to determine what population base to use.

Ginsberg's opinion says that states may use total population. Lawyer's know what "may" means. The rest of the opinion then tries to extrapolate from congressional apportionment, which has nothing to do with legislative apportionment.

Rather than asking for rehearing, they avoid answering the question whether eligible voters may be used.

Alito's opinion is the one that Scalia would have written.

I really don't get how leaving the standard up to the states makes any sense with Baker v. Carr.  Equal population is required, but population can mean whatever the state legislature wants it to mean?  If you're going to do that, why not just go Thomas and overturn Baker v. Carr?

The Tennessee constitution and statute in question in Baker v Carr provided for apportionment on the basis of eligible voters. Tennessee had used eligible electors for a few decades, but then stopped.

You're suggesting that if Tennessee had actually updated its apportionment, the SCOTUS would/should have intervened and required that they use population equality?

Who is going to be the next new justice?

[jimrtex]

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

SCOTUS: Dunno.

SCOTUS decision in Evenwel v Abbott

I suspect that Justice Scalia was going to write the opinion, which would have more vigorously defended the idea that it was up to the states to determine what population base to use.

Ginsberg's opinion says that states may use total population. Lawyer's know what "may" means. The rest of the opinion then tries to extrapolate from congressional apportionment, which has nothing to do with legislative apportionment.

Rather than asking for rehearing, they avoid answering the question whether eligible voters may be used.

Alito's opinion is the one that Scalia would have written.

I really don't get how leaving the standard up to the states makes any sense with Baker v. Carr.  Equal population is required, but population can mean whatever the state legislature wants it to mean?  If you're going to do that, why not just go Thomas and overturn Baker v. Carr?

The Tennessee constitution and statute in question in Baker v Carr provided for apportionment on the basis of eligible voters. Tennessee had used eligible electors for a few decades, but then stopped.

You're suggesting that if Tennessee had actually updated its apportionment, the SCOTUS would/should have intervened and required that they use population equality?

Who is going to be the next new justice?

President Cruz should nominate chief judge Kozinski from the 9th Circuit or Jerry Smith from  the 5th Circuit.

[jimrtex]

The Maine Constitution's rules for legislative districts (as opposed to redistricting) (most of Article IV, Part First, Section 2 for the House, "dittoed" for the Senate in the Article IV, Part Second, Section 2, 1st paragraph) and county commissioner redistricting (Article IX, Section 25)... they both say that the number of Representatives (read "Senators" for the Senate) or commissioners "shall be divided" or that "the apportionment commission shall divide" that number "into the number of inhabitants of the {State exclusive of, county, excluding} foreigners not naturalized{,} according to the latest Federal Decennial Census or a {S,s}tate {C,c}ensus previously ordered by the Legislature to coincide with the Federal Decennial Census, to determine a mean population figure for each {Representative [read "Senatorial" for the Senate district rules], county commissioner} {D,d}istrict."  (Italics and boldface mine; the colors a way to quote similar text from two places in one quote.)

In practice, however, Maine has just used the "regular" census numbers (total population), with the part about excluding foreigners not naturalized from the count seemingly ignored.  This may be a case of the part I italicized in my above citation, and the fact that the census counts total population and that the state doesn't want to have to pay for its own census, rendering unfeasible (or arguably enough as unfeasible that people can get away with ignoring it) the part I put in boldface.  Can someone tell me what, if anything, Evenwell v. Abbott means for Maine (perhaps it's more what a different ruling would have meant).  Will this ruling help clear the way for the Census Bureau to do what it likes to call a "one number census"?  I assume a "one number census" is one where each census unit from block on up (and thus each possible district of any kind) has one number that is the its census population, period.  To jimrtex, would your guess as to the Scalia-written opinion of the court (Alito's concurrence) likely had any impact on Maine (making it clear that Maine didn't have a federal constitutional excuse not to follow it's state constitution)?

The Texas constitution for senate districts used to be similar (I think it said electors, so citizenship and age were implicit). At redistricting time, the lawyers would always explain to the legislators that they could use electors, but that they would have to justify their numbers, and probably couldn't just use voter rolls. This was when Texas was subject to preclearance so it would not have worth the fight.

Every decade or so, there is an omnibus constitutional amendment to clean up obsolete language in the constitution. The senate provisions also outlawed division of counties, which had not been observed since the OMOV decisions of the 1960s, and was clearly obsolete.Whoever was drafting the omnibus cleanup amendment, struck off both provisions.

So currently the only requirement for the 31 districts is contiguity. There is no explicit requirement about any population base for senatorial districts. Compare to that for House districts, which were always based on population.

Article III, Sec. 25.  SENATORIAL DISTRICTS.  The State shall be divided into Senatorial Districts of contiguous territory, and each district shall be entitled to elect one Senator. 

Article III, Sec. 26.  APPORTIONMENT OF MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.  The members of the House of Representatives shall be apportioned among the several counties, according to the number of population in each, as nearly as may be, on a ratio obtained by dividing the population of the State, as ascertained by the most recent United States census, by the number of members of which the House is composed; provided, that whenever a single county has sufficient population to be entitled to a Representative, such county shall be formed into a separate Representative District, and when two or more counties are required to make up the ratio of representation, such counties shall be contiguous to each other; and when any one county has more than sufficient population to be entitled to one or more Representatives, such Representative or Representatives shall be apportioned to such county, and for any surplus of population it may be joined in a Representative District with any other contiguous county or counties.

I suspect that this absence was the reason that the Texas senate was the target of the lawsuit. (ie Texas was only subject to equal protection of the right to vote under the 14th Amendment). The other reason was that the senate districts have been finalized. The House and Congressional districts are still being litigated.

In Texas, the VAP could be used, and the CVAP could have been estimated from the ACS.

If Maine were sued under Section 2 of the VRA, there would be arguments over what the Somali CVAP was in various parts of Portland, or perhaps Native American populations in the Bangor area.

Based on the 2010-4 ACS the non-citizen population of larger towns/cities in Cumberland County

Portland 7.1%
Westbrook 4.9%
South Portland 4.2%
Scarborough 3.2%
Falmouth 2.6%
Brunswick 1.4%
Gorham 0.6%
Windham 0.4%

So it appears to give a reasonable distribution, but there is a big MOE even for larger towns.

Aroostook and Washington appear to have an actual Canadian presence, but the towns are so small, they may be 2% +/- 4%. There are so many towns that are like that, that it is quite likely that some of the towns do have 2 or 3% non-US citizen.

Inland, it is the larger populated towns that show an appreciable percentage, and is likely real, but it is also quite small:

Lewiston 2.7%
Auburn 1.6%
Rumford 2.8%
Augusta 1.4%
Waterville 1.3%
Oakland 2.3% (highest in Kennebec)

There are some hot spots on the coast:

Bar Harbor 5.7%
Wiscasset 5.7%
Rockport 2.1%

If we were to apportion among the counties, Cumberland would lose 1/2 a house seat which would be distributed in tiny bits across the state. Columns are apportionment of 151 representatives based on population, citizen population, and percentage non-citizen of total population.

Androscoggin         12.21 12.23  1.5%
Aroostook             8.03  8.03  1.7%
Cumberland           32.32 31.84  3.1%
Franklin              3.47  3.50  0.8%
Hancock               6.20  6.20  1.6%
Kennebec             13.81 13.91  0.9%
Knox                  4.51  4.51  1.6%
Lincoln               3.89  3.91  1.2%
Oxford                6.54  6.59  0.9%
Penobscot            17.46 17.50  1.4%
Piscataquis           1.96  1.98  0.8%
Sagadahoc             3.99  4.03  0.7%
Somerset              5.88  5.93  0.8%
Waldo                 4.42  4.44  1.2%
Washington            3.68  3.69  1.4%
York                 22.61 22.73  1.1%

[jimrtex]

Who is going to be the next new justice?

President Cruz should nominate chief judge Kozinski from the 9th Circuit or Jerry Smith from  the 5th Circuit.

Both would be easy filibusters unless R's have 60 seats.  Of course, McConnell (or any other Majority Leader) could kill the SCOTUS filibuster, but if that ever goes down, it's likely that whichever party is on the receiving end will run in the next election on adding a seat for every time it was used.  I expect this is even more likely in a case when a seat was held over from the last opposition president's term.     

Let them filibuster. Lock the doors.