On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case if states should draw voting districts based on eligible voters, instead of total populations.

The case — Evenwel v. Abbott — stems from the 2013 redistricting of 31 seats in the Texas Senate, which was based on 2010 census population figures alone. Texas voters Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger sued then-Texas Governor Rick Perry and then-Texas Secretary of State Nandita Berry for allegedly violating the “one-person, one-vote” principle of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by not dividing districts in a manner that equalized both total population and voter population.

This principle requires that, “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.”

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state, which argued that there was no legal basis for Evenwel and Pfenninger’s claims that the new election districts were unconstitutional.

Why is this being heard and possible consequences if the SCOTUS sides with Evenwel and Pfenninger’s claims…

A 1964 Supreme Court decision, Reynolds v. Sims, ruled that voting districts must contain very close to the same number of people. But the court did not say which people count.

Almost all state and local governments draw districts based on total population. If people who were ineligible to vote were evenly distributed, the difference between counting all people or counting only eligible voters would not matter. But demographic patterns vary widely.

If the challengers succeed, the practical consequences would be enormous, Joseph R. Fishkin, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin wrote in 2012 in The Yale Law Journal.

It would, he said, “shift power markedly at every level, away from cities and neighborhoods with many immigrants and many children and toward the older, whiter, more exclusively native-born areas in which a higher proportion of the total population consists of eligible voters.”

That sounds like a bit more of the erosion of representation of the people. Election Finance Laws, the Voting Rights Amendment, voter ID laws and the list goes on. I am just wondering where these Texas voters got this great idea…

The organization behind the challenge, the Project on Fair Representation, also was the brainchild of other major Supreme Court cases challenging minority preferences. Among them: Fisher v. University of Texas, challenging the use of affirmative action policies in college admissions, and Shelby County, Ala., v. Holder, challenging a major section of the Voting Rights Act.

The challengers were backed by a half-dozen conservative and libertarian groups, an unusually large number for a case that had yet to be granted by the high court. But it appears they were persuasive.

I guess the “real constituency” is dying out and needs a boost of power.

Evenwel v. Abbott will be heard by the SCOTUS in the fall.

House Speaker John Boehner cancelled the vote on the legislation designed to help alleviate some of the issues caused by the current border crisis. Among agreements that could not be reached were the amount of requested funding the President said was needed to deal with crisis and changes to the 2008 Child Trafficking law….

More than 57,500 unaccompanied children and teenagers have been apprehended after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally since October, overwhelming a system already plagued by backlogs and in need of significant resources. President Barack Obama requested $3.7 billion to deal with the crisis, and Senate Democrats proposed a $2.7 billion package. House Republicans introduced a bill to approve just a fraction of that sum — with the possibility of appropriating more funds later — with conditions many Democrats oppose, such as changing a 2008 law so unaccompanied minors from countries other than Mexico and Canada can be deported more quickly and sending the National Guard to the border.

The issue over the 2008 law, in particular, became a flashpoint in the debate. While the White House has voiced support for changing the law to allow for speedier deportations, most Democrats in Congress have voiced vehement opposition. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the bill an “unjust and inhumane proposal,” and Democratic members were urged to oppose it.

Statement issue by House Republican leadership…

This situation shows the intense concern within our conference – and among the American people – about the need to ensure the security of our borders and the president’s refusal to faithfully execute our laws.  There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries.

Huh, Mr. Speaker? Are you suggesting the President use an executive order?

“Senator Reid agrees with House Republican leaders’ statement that President Obama has the authority to take steps on immigration reform on his own,” Jentleson (Reid’s aid) said. “He’s glad Republicans have come around and hopes this means they’ll be dropping their frivolous lawsuit against the President, instead of continuing to waste the American people’s time and money.”

Update…

House Republicans resurrected their bill to address the crisis at the U.S-Mexico border late on Thursday, and they are delaying a planned five-week recess in an attempt to pass the revived bill before Congress leaves town for its August recess.

House GOP leaders led a conference meeting Thursday afternoon in which the decision was made to stay at least one extra day in Washington. House Republicans are planning to meet at a 9 a.m. conference. However, plans could change at any minute. The latest move followed a chaotic day on Capitol Hill where House leaders abruptly postponed a scheduled vote on the bill and then pulled it from the day’s schedule.

According to House Republican sources, House leadership heard from a number of dissatisfied members who said it was imperative to pass something before recess…