Summary
Professor Nate Persily is cited in this Washington Post article for his research on the shortcomings of using the American Community Survey for redistricting.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Evenwel v. Abbott. The main issue in the case is who must be counted when district lines are drawn.
The “one person, one vote” principle in operation since the 1960s has typically been interpreted to mean all persons — including people who cannot vote, such as children and non-citizens. The suit brought by Evenwel against the state of Texas seeks to change the definition to eligible voters.
…
Of course, this is a hypothetical exercise. The devil would be in the proverbial details, as Stanford political scientist and law professor Nate Persily emphasizes by noting the shortcomings of the American Community Survey for redistricting.
Read More