A very important ruling came down today at the U.S. Supreme Court. They unanimously rejected the effort to change the political boundaries that would have diminished the vote of the Latino population.
Don't Miss: Sam's Club Black Friday 2016 Details
The court case started with two Texas residents that wanted the court to draw legislative boundaries that would create districted with roughly equal populations that actually voted, not based on total population.
However, the problem with total population figures means that people who live in areas with large groups of people who cannot vote almost ineffective in an election. This idea violated the one-person, one-vote requirement.
However, not a single one of the justices ruled for the challengers.
"Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the court.
The challengers, she said, "have shown no reason for the court to disturb this longstanding use of total population."
Ginsburg was joined in her beliefs by Justices John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito each wrote separate concurring opinions.
According to NBC, relying on voting population will hinder the election of Hispanic representatives. Opponents say that it would shift political power away from large urban areas that have minority populations, which often vote for Democrats.
According to the nation's founders, Ginsburg says at least, they wanted "representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote."
Justice Alito said that he agrees, even though he tends to represent more conservative. He believes that the states are not required to count total population. The ruling doesn't bar states from counting the voting population, which is something he called "an important and sensitive question that we can consider if and when" such a case comes before the court.
"Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 States and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries," Ginsburg wrote. "Appellants have shown no reason for the Court to disturb this longstanding use of total population."
She also suggested that non-voters need representation.
"Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates—children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public-education system—and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies," Ginsburg wrote. "By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation."