A brief written by Professor Nate Persily is cited in this New York Times article for being mentioned by Justice Ginsburg in the Supreme Court’s case “Evenwel v. Abbott.”

A closely divided Supreme Court on Tuesday struggled to decide “what kind of democracy people wanted,” as Justice Stephen G. Breyer put it during an argument over the meaning of the constitutional principle of “one person one vote.”

The court’s decision in the case, expected by June, has the potential to shift political power from urban areas to rural ones, a move that would provide a big boost to Republican voters in state legislative races in large parts of the nation.

…

Justice Ginsburg mentioned a brief filed by Nathaniel Persily, a political scientist at Stanford Law School, that said there is only one constitutionally required and reliable data set: the census. But the census counts everyone, the brief said, and there are no comparable data for eligible voters.