Fact Check: Judge Alito and the Principle of One Person, One Vote

Today, in response to a question from Senator Kohl, Judge Alito said: “at the time when I was in college, there was an issue that was very much a live issue at the time as to what one person, one vote meant.”  [1/11/06]

While the meaning of “one person, one vote” might have been a “live issue” when Judge Alito was in college, it is clear that he objected to the Warren Court’s decisions establishing the principle that each person’s vote must count equally.  Indeed, during his tenure in the Reagan Administration and on the federal bench, Judge Alito betrayed a very restrictive view of important voting rights protections.  Given the fact that the Supreme Court will soon hear a challenge to the partisan redrawing of Texas’ Congressional districts, this remains a vital issue.

Judge Alito’s 1985 Job Application to be Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Meese Justice Dept.

As a 35-year-old attorney seeking a promotion in the Meese Justice Department, Judge Alito filled out an application in which he was asked about his “philosophical commitment” to the policies of the Reagan Administration.  In that application, Judge Alito wrote that he developed a “deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions,” including those involving “reapportionment.”

This is particularly troubling, given that the Warren Court’s reapportionment decisions enshrined the principle of “one person, one vote” – ensuring that everybody’s vote would be weighted equally.  These are landmark decisions protecting the integrity of the political process and serve as cornerstone of American democracy.

In particular, the Warren Court:

      •     held that the Equal Protection Clause requires state legislative districts to be drawn on the basis of population, so that the weight of a citizen’s vote would not depend on where he or she lived (in Alabama, the county that includes Birmingham, which had 600,000 people, got the same number of state senators - one - as a county with barely 15,000 people) Baker v. Carr 369 US 186 (1962), Reynolds v. Sims 377 U.S. 533 (1964);

•     held that individuals have a “constitutionally protected right to cast an equally weighted vote . . . .”  Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713 (1964).

      •     ruled that congressional districts must have equal populations “as nearly as practicable” Wesberry v. Sanders 376 U.S. 1 (1964);

      •     banned the redrawing of municipal boundaries to exclude minority voters Gomillion v. Lightfoot 364 U.S. 339 (1960);

      •     banned the “county-unit” method of counting votes in a statewide election because it gave significantly more voting power to rural voters than urban voters Gray v. Sanders 372 U.S. 368 (1963);

These opinions help form the cornerstone of our modern democracy, and Judge Alito’s expressed disagreement with some – if not all – of these decisions gives great reason for pause.  

Judge Alito’s Record on the Bench

Judge Alito has had few opportunities to rule on voting rights cases.  In his only case involving interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, which was Congress’ effort to protect the constitutional guarantees of equal access to voting, Judge Alito voted to uphold an at-large system of electing members of the Red Clay School District in Delaware.  Jenkins v. Manning 116 F.3d 685 (3d Cir. 1997)  The case was filed by the Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law on behalf of African-American voters, and alleged that the at-large method of election diluted the voting strength of African American voters.  Even the majority opinion recognized that the Supreme Court has “long recognized that . . . at-large voting schemes may ‘operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial [minorities in] the voting population.’” 

In a strong dissent to the opinion signed by Judge Alito, Judge Max Rosenn wrote that the decision “guarantees that minority voting rights in Red Clay will continue upon happenstance.”  Id. At 702 (Rosenn, J., dissenting)

Real-Life Consequences:

This is more than an arcane legal issue. The Supreme Court has issued some closely-divided decisions on the fundamental right of Americans to have their votes counted equally.   Indeed, the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a challenge to the partisan redrawing of Texas’ Congressional districts, masterminded by Tom DeLay.  (League of United Latin v. Perry (05-0204); Travis County v. Perry (04-0254); Jackson, Eddie v. Perry (05-0276); and GI Forum of Texas v. Perry (05-0439).)

Furthermore, Congress is likely to take up reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act this year.  That statute has led to dramatic increases in minority representation in Congress and dramatic increases in African American voting in the South.  (US Census, “Reported Voting Rates in Presidential Election Years by Selected Characteristics:  November 1964 to 2004,” May 26, 2005)