Chas Goldman

CAP Court Outline and Notes

Evenwel v. Abbott
Lawyer/Abbott/Appellee: Opening Statement
Overview of case: Appellants (two registered voters in the state of Texas) challenge the new
redistricting maps in the state of Texas and argue that districts should be drawn by total number
of registered voters as opposed to current standard in Texas and the rest of the United States of
drawing districts by total population ("Evenwel v. Abbott").
Basis for Appellee(s): The 14th Amendment guarantees that all Americans are treated equally
under the law, including the participation of all Americans regarding the drawing of district lines;
the amendment does not simply protect all voters but all Americans ("14th Amendment").
Basis for Appellant(s): Erodes the principle of one-person one-vote ("Brief of the American").
Theory of the Appellee(s): The 14th Amendment guarantees protection and participation for all
Americans regardless of whether they are registered or eligible to vote and there are centuries
worth of precedent and practice to support this claim (14th Amendment) (Robertson et al.).
Likely theory of the Appellant(s): Since many of the people who are not registered to vote count
towards total representation in districts in the of Texas which drew their new district lines after
the 2010 Census according to total population of such districts the Appellants will likely argue
that the principle of one-person-one-vote has been eroded because an individual's vote counts
more in a district with less people as registered voters as opposed to a district where most of
the individuals accounting for total population of that district are also registered voters (Brief of
the American).
Theme of our case: This case is about preserving equality and protecting the ideals of a
republican government where power is to the people, not power to the eligible voters.
Motto: We the people, not we the voters.
Outline of opening statement:
Thank you, Madam Chief Justice, and may it please the court. This case of Evenwel v Abbott
essentially asks the question, should districts be drawn according to the total population of that
district, or should congressional and state districts be drawn by total voter population. It is the
opinion of the state of Texas, represented by Governor Abbott, *points to Hank, who raises
hand* here, that congressional districts should be drawn by total population. The appellants, as
you have just heard from their opening statement point to the fact that drawing district lines by
total population creates some deviation from the core democratic principle of one-person onevote. This is because in the certain districts there are differences in the number of people in total
and the number of people who are registered and eligible to vote. Some deviation is to be
expected no matter what system is used to apportion and draw district line as there is no perfect
solution to this problem. But, the solution that the appellants propose of drawing district lines by

registered voter population would erode the principle of one-person one-vote as established by
the 14th amendment, the very principle on which they base their argument by a much larger
amount than the current deviation allows. Their proposed system would cut out swaths of
predominantly minority voters who are not registered voters from the political process as well as
children, the mentally ill and felons among others. These groups are not only people and cutting
them out of the political process would fundamentally destroy the principle of one person one
vote but they are the groups who often need the most legislation directed towards them. I would
remind the appellants and the members of our distinguished jury that the Constitution begins
with the famed phrase, we the people, not we the voters.
The appellants argument is one that would wholly erode this nation's founding principles of
republican government and equality. This case is essentially all about preserving equality and
protecting those ideals of republican government that have been cemented into this nation's
fabric for centuries. The appellants argument undoes centuries worth of precedent and practice
which we intend to present today and their challenge rips at the cloth from which this nation was
cut..
My team and I intend to call to the stand a series of witnesses of whom I shall now preview for
our distinguished jury.
First, Ms. Cathy Lacy, Regional Director of the Denver Regional Office of the United States
Census Bureau, Ms. Lacy is a Census expert and plans to give submit information regarding
district maps, voting rights and demographics in the state of Texas ("Denver Region").
Ms. Suzanna Sherry, the Herman O. Loewenstein Professor of Law at the Vanderbilt University
Law School. Ms. Sherry is a constitutional and specifically 14th Amendment expert who will
provide this court with evidence regarding the equal protection clause ("Suzanna Sherry").
Professor Herman Schwartz of the Washington College School of Law at American University, a
highly regarded figure in the realm of Supreme Court precedent will provide the court with
information regarding Supreme Court rulings on the topic of redistricting ("Herman Schwartz:
Professor of Law").
Reverend Ellis Jenkins, a reverend in Texas 15th district will provide the court with information
regarding repercussions and disenfranchisement that could occur if the court rules in favor of
the appellants. Source: Affidavit of Reverend Jenkins
Governor Greg Abbott, the chief executive of the state of Texas will provide the court with
information regarding the laws and constitution of the State of Texas ("Office of the Governor").
These five witnesses will provide evidence that we believe to be strong and irrefutable and I ask
you as a court and as a jury to remember once again that ruling in favor of the appellants would
undermine equality and the constitutional ideals of republican government of one-person onevote.

I stay mine time but I remind the court once again that this nation was founded on We the
people, not we the voters. Thank you.
(Not memorized just an outline of testimony and something to refer to while preparing for
statement).
Notes
Appellants Sue Evenwell and Edward Pfenninger are registered voters residing respectively in
Texas Senate District 1 and Texas Senate District 4. Both vote regularly. App. 5a. Appellants
filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas under 42 U.S.C.
Section 198 challenging the current Texas Senate Election District map, alleging that the
currently drawn districts violate the one-person, one-vote principle of the Equal Protection
Clause. They seek a permanent injunction against further use of the current Texas Senate
District map in future elections. App. 34a. After every decennial Census, the state legislatures of
every state, including Texas, redraw the election districts for every state legislator, as well as for
each of the states Congressional representatives. Well established precedents of this Court
establish fundamental principles guiding how these election districts may be drawn.
These precedents establish the one-person, one-vote principle, requiring roughly equal
numbers of voters in each district, so that effectively every voter in a state would carry roughly
equal weight as far as practicable. This principle stems from the basic, equal right of every voter
to participate in elections ("Brief of the American").
Summarized: The appellants are both voters in Texas who are suing the state of Texas because
they feel one-person one vote has been violated from Equal Protection clause.

Essential question according to OYEZ: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment require that districting take into account the number of voters rather than the total
population ("Evenwel v. Abbott")?
Answer is no, there are years worth of precedent that Meijade will talk about regarding
redistricting in the supreme court and it was even the intention of the framers of the 14th
amendment to create a system in which all voices are heard, meaning all persons are counted,
even non-voters.
Both at the Founding and following the Civil War, our Constitutions Framers debated how to
ensure a system of equal representation consistent with our Constitutions promise of individual
rights and democratic self-governance. On both occasions, our Constitutions Framers decreed
that representation in the House of Representatives would be based on the total population, not
the number of eligible voters or other less-encompassing metrics. See U.S. Const. art. I, 2; id.
at amend. XIV, 2. During the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, many Congressmen
urgedas Evenwel does herethat the number of eligible voters should be the basis of
representation, insisting that voter equality must be the overriding constitutional concern. Those
arguments were rejected time and again. The Framers decreed that the whole population is

represented; that although all do not vote, yet all are heard. That is the idea of the Constitution
(Kendall).
Summarized: The founders affirmed the notion that all should be counted and this was
challenged back in reconstruction and rejected as it should be rejected now.
He opens with the claim that the case presents a fundamental question ... whether the one
person, one vote rule affords eligible voters any reasonable protection. Justice Sonia
Sotomayor stops him almost immediately. What youre forgetting, she says, is the dual
interest. There is a voting interest, but there is also a representation interest the legislature is
protecting not just voters; its protecting its citizensor noncitizens. The people who live there
(Lithwick).
Summarized: Justice Sotomayor makes the point of a dual interest, protecting voters but also
protecting constituents or the people who live in a district, and that means all people not just
voters.