Is ACLU inconsistent in voting dilution cases? Group explains its positions
The American Civil Liberties Union told the U.S. Supreme Court in an amicus brief last month that the size of legislative districts should be based on the overall population rather than eligible voters.
The ACLU brief argues that even unauthorized immigrants should be counted in districts, a position that tends to help amplify the power of Democrats, the New York Times reports in a Sidebar column. The ACLU submitted its brief in Evenwel v. Abbott, a constitutional challenge by two Texas voters who maintain their votes are diluted because their districts have more eligible voters than other, more urban districts with the same overall population, violating the principle of one man, one vote.
Yet in ACLU suits filed in Rhode Island and Florida, the civil liberties group objects to counting prisoners when drawing district lines, a position that appears to contravene its Supreme Court position that everyone should be counted, according to the Sidebar article. Counting prisoners, who are often in rural areas, tends to amplify the power of Republicans, the article says.
Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s voting rights project, told the Times that the ACLU believes prisoners should be counted in drawing election districts, but only in the places they used to live. He said the ACLU brief didn’t take a position on “prison gerrymandering” in the amicus brief because lawyers involved in the Rhode Island case filed a separate Supreme Court amicus brief on the issue.
