You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myStatesman.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myStatesman.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myStatesman.com.

Bresette: Include children when redrawing electoral districts


Do children count?

The U.S. Supreme Court will address this very question on Dec.8, when the justices hear oral arguments in the case Evenwel v. Abbott. This case from Texas challenges our long-standing practice of counting every person when drawing electoral districts. Today, almost all state and local jurisdictions in America draw districts based on total population. That way, elected leaders represent equal numbers of people in each district.

In this particular case, however, the plaintiffs want to require that Texas districts be drawn counting only the voting population, not the total population.

This requirement is problematic because it upends what representative democracy means in America.

First, counting only voters excludes a significant population, namely children under age 18. Children represent the largest group of nonvoters that would be affected, and areas with high numbers of children would see dramatically reduced representation. Though children can’t vote, they are indeed people, and have a vital stake in the affairs of our nation. For this reason, the Children’s Defense Fund of Texas, our national office and state affiliates filed an amicus brief in the case. In it, we urge the Supreme Court to dismiss this effort to undermine voting rights and representation and to ensure equal protection for those not yet old enough to vote.

Not only is this case a direct attack on the “one person, one vote” principle enshrined by the 14th Amendment, it is an affront to the fundamental democratic principle that elected officials represent all people in their jurisdiction, not just those who voted for them. Among those most in need of a voice are the 75 million children in this country. Texas alone has nearly 7 million residents younger than 18 — more than a quarter of our total population — and 96 percent are native-born residents.

Second, another problem with ignoring such a substantial share of the population when designing legislative districts is that, in Texas, and in many states, the child population is concentrated in certain areas. For example, there are significant variations in child population as a percentage of total population in Texas Senate districts, ranging from 23 percent in some rural areas to 30 percent and more in some cities, suburbs and in the Rio Grande Valley.

Excluding children would result in dramatic shifts in representation away from regions with higher child populations — areas that need as many voices as possible in the Capitol because they have the greatest need for adequate resources, programs and services. Two decades of research tells us that the status of children is directly linked to the level of public investment they receive. In Texas, a state that consistently ranks near the bottom in measures of child well-being, children’s concerns need more – not less – weight in state policy and budgeting decisions.

Third, excluding children is problematic because legislative redistricting plans are revised only once every 10 years. Consequently, significant numbers of residents who are underage at the time of redistricting will become eligible voters over the decade. Over time, this creates growing imbalances in how areas are represented. In Texas, roughly three million children between 9 and 17 years old will become voting age over a 10 year period.

This case is about our ability to have a legislature that represents all people equally — and the foreseeable, negative consequences of declaring that children “don’t count.” Both the State of Texas and the Obama administration defend the current, long-standing approach of counting everyone. Texas, for good reason, has chosen to define the “people” entitled to equal representation to include children. The Supreme Court should uphold its power to do so, reject this radical proposal, and reaffirm that children do indeed count and should be counted.

Patrick Bresette is executive director of the Children’s Defense Fund of Texas. Read the CDF amicus brief here.


Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Commentary: How colleges lost control by promoting activism over study
Commentary: How colleges lost control by promoting activism over study

This year will go down as the year of the Great Academic Meltdown. Campus after campus — from Yale to Middlebury — violence has shut down the free exchange of ideas and the very possibility of rational discussion and debate. How is this possible — and what can be done about it? In just 50 years, how did we go from institutions of...
Jack Hunter: Trump Derangement Syndrome vs. Obama Derangement Syndrome
Jack Hunter: Trump Derangement Syndrome vs. Obama Derangement Syndrome

Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert wrote in 2016, “It’s classic Obama Derangement Syndrome: the inability of adults to rationally deal with the actions of the Democratic president.” He was describing conservatives’ sometimes irrational hatred of all things Obama. And he had a good point: From 2008 through 2016, conservatives...
Letters to the editor: June 27, 2017
Letters to the editor: June 27, 2017

Re: June 20 article, “High court to weigh partisan gerrymandering.” I’m pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider the legality of political gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the biggest thing that contributes to the hyperpartisanship that we are currently experiencing. It encourages conflict rather than compromise &mdash...
Kathleen Parker: President Jujitsu and the art of the bluff
Kathleen Parker: President Jujitsu and the art of the bluff

WASHINGTON — Five months into Donald Trump’s administration, only the unwise doubt the president’s intelligence. Just ask former FBI Director James Comey, who, in addition to being fired by Trump, has been redefined by the president as a dishonest leaker who might have lied were it not for nonexistent tapes of their conversations...
Maureen Dowd: Donald skunks the Democrats
Maureen Dowd: Donald skunks the Democrats

WASHINGTON — You know who is really sick and tired of Donald Trump winning, to the point where they beg, “Please, Mr. President, sir, it’s too much”? Democrats. The Democrats just got skunked four to nothing in races they excitedly thought they could win because everyone they hang with hates Trump. If Trump is the Antichrist...
More Stories