Photo: AP

On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a challenge to the “one person, one vote” rule that requires states to count all residents, regardless of their eligibility to vote, when determining election districts.

“One person, one vote,” endorsed by the Court in the 1964, augments the voting power of districts with large numbers of people who cannot legally vote. These include legal and illegal immigrants, certain convicted criminals, and children. (Experts generally agree that in election scenarios this rule tends to benefit Democrats.) In her opinion for the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote:

“Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 States and countless local jurisdictions have long followed. As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible to vote. Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates and in receiving constituent services. 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.”

In the case before the Court, Evenwel v. Abbott, the challengers argued that Texas, in the manner it drew its Senate districts, violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee to equal protection under the law. The plaintiffs were represented by the conservative advocacy group the Project on Fair Representation, which has challenged the Voting Rights Act in past cases.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito did not sign onto Ginsburg’s opinion, but agreed with the ruling. Justice Thomas wrote that he’d rather let states determine whether or not they draw district lines based on number of eligible voters alone.

The ruling shouldn’t change much practically speaking—as Adam Liptak at the New York Times put it, the judges have “upheld the status quo.” But at least nothing got worse.