award at lincoln center presented by educational video center helping struggling teens by getting them involved in journalism and film production. i'm antonio mora thank you for joining us ray is next with "inside story". have a great night. [ ♪♪ ] there are 435 voting members of the u.s. house of representatives, that's roughly one for every 735,000 people in the country, but which people. a texan named sue evenwell is suing the government to define districts not by the number of people but the number of citizens eligible to vote.

a change like that could upend centuries of tradition and change the make-up of legislatures which person whose vote. it's "inside story". welcome to "inside story", i'm ray suarez. apportionment - deciding what seats for elected office go where and in what number is part of the upper game of pol tick, the machinery that takes a back street to party label and political personalities. we long a portioned seats in relation to a people and a place. what if we base the number of seats given to a state and the bound ris of distributes not on human being present, but the eligible voters that live there. the supreme court agreed to hear

a case that has practical implications and philosophical ones. who is worthy of representation in congress. al jazeera's lisa stark joins me now, and has been covering the journey to the high court of evenwell versus abbott. great to have you back. >> nice to be here. this is a case that could have huge implications for political power and democracy. two voters are challenging the date map dividing the districts. divided by population one of them is a county chair woman for the republican party, and she says it's unfair that some district, though they might have similar population numbers have different numbers to those eligible to vote. and some voters have more influence than others at the ballot box. some votes count more than

others. it is contended that district should be formed baf on the number of voters. a 3-judge panel rejected the view. the supreme court to the surprise of many agreed to here the case and you can bet it will have an impact on congressional decisions. >> you say to the surprise of many. why in this case. >> the court had three chances to rule. but they declined. in 2001, one person, one vote - at that time justice thomas said we need to give the state guidance. he was angling to take the case in 2001, and enough justices agreed that they should take a look at it. >> people are sitting at home

trying to wrap their heads around what this means, who would be excluded in creating a new distribute if sue and the others have their way in. >> this is an issue of immigration, and hispanic voters in texas. in houston and dallas. about 50% of the voting age latinos are not u.s. citizens. they may be undocumented. they are not u.s. citizens. thing about that. if you koulent the districts based on who is eligible to vote they do not count. you are not going to counselled them. if the sex us vote wince, if you are lessening the political power of the hispanics. those are the people who will not be counted when it comes to setting up congressional and

state districts. >> there's 40 plus million americans under the age of 18. would they be included in the idea. because we have counted voters, kids don't counselled. they wouldn't be counted. some say legislators might say look, i represent everyone in the district. those people that vote for me those that don't. and people who argue against it, they say it's a democracy, you have to represent everywhere. those that don't vote, do you represent them. do you relevant them if it's guided this way. >> if a member of the texas senate has to garner twice as many votes to win in one district as opposed to another, they are saying what in that

smaller voter pool the vote is worth more. >> exactly. the vote is more powerful. they are saying the vote is 1.5 times more powerful than their vote and contend that that violates what the supreme court did in 1964. the court set up the principle. one person, one vote. >> thank you. if you live in a state with a lot of immigrants undocumented residents and legal residents that never became citizens is your vote weighted heavily than those in the district over. it's a symbolling debate with bare-knuckle implications. which person whose vote. it's tonight's "inside story".

woix back to "inside story", i'm ray suarez. a man who became the driving force in the fouping of the country and the second president of the united states john adams, said equality of representation in the legislator is the first principle of liberty. his views were shaped in part. it is packed with electoral districts where almost no one lived. and sent a member of parliament with an equal vote for someone that represented thousands of voters. it was specified that house seats would be assigned based on people in the state. it's heading to the high court. it's time to talk about who would be represented. joining us is a council member from the brennan center. and a senior feller for

constitutional studies at the cato institute. >> they are filing an amma cues. a friend of the petitioners. what is at stake here. why do you want to reopen the art? >> sure. the fairness in the electoral area is important. if the democracy is not working, it leads to all sorts of violations and here you have a situation where some votes are words more than other, some have more power. if there were 10 districts with the same number of people and there's on one voter in fine districts and 10 in the 10th. they have the same population. and it will be 10 times as powerful. some of this is due to the vague ris of turn out. if you monkey with the formula of assigning districts to the numbers that live there, are you

opening us up to speculative democracy where people may turn out in one election, and not in another. and suddenly votes are seen as worth more or less? >> i don't think i'd advocate a system based on the numbers of voters that voted. the plaintiffs want the calculation to be done based on citizens of voting age, rather than total population it's heesier to measure. >> was the constitution clear about how districts should be apportioned? >> well no this is something that has evolved over time as, you know, early on in the history of the country. you know we didn't have clear rules on this. and you ended up with a system where in california for example, los angeles gets 6 million voters but has one

senator. others had 14,000 voters and one senator. the supreme court said it was stream. that's what it was about, whether it's too extreme or not. >> is it clear to you that this would have national application if what is after all, a texas state case having to do with apportion the in one state senate is heard by the court. >> it clearly would have a big impact on the south-west. in texas and california, where in place look dallas and houston, they are not citizens. they'd have an impact in other. and in other suburban areas, that would be a shifting of power. >> you see that as part of what would happen if we change the

formula. by definition, power would be rebalanced going away from the distribute to areas with high immigrant populations, rebalanced towards other areas. i'm an immigrant, and finally got citizenship and right to vote. i'm sensitive to concerns. when we think of political theory, we want to make sure the voter is it's the principal of one man, one vote. it's easy to declare the principle that states should draw to equalize as best they can, the power of the voter. >> before you were naturalized, did you pay state income tax? >> i was in d c. i paid income tax. i great with no taxation. if i could have the deal of not being taxed, i would have taken it. >> did you pay sales tax and property tax? >> sure. that alone, would make you

worthy of representation. >> so did tourists. >> but they go home. >> sure. our theories of representation and voting were based on different things. i would argue that like we shouldn't have noncitizens, some towns and localities would experiment. all power to them. in federal elections, states can decide what they want to do. citizen voters eligible voters children not counting as well. it's important to equalize the power and fulfil the protection. rational. when you read the briefs part of the argument stems from the effects of the voting rights act. was this the law of unintended law coming back. i don't see this as connected to

the voting rights act. if you look at texas, it's hard to say. we talk about the shifting of the power, it's hard to say hispanics are over-represented. 25% of districts in texas are hispanic. they are 6 million people. they don't have a hispanic district north of san antonio. but you raise an interesting point. the one person, one vote is rooted in the civil right movement. in the fact that when you had the portion that existed. it really hurt fern voters. today -- fern voters. it would hurt hispanic places like in texas. >> it's ironic that part of the

argument is based on the overarching votes, it's their votes putting them into a supermajority district in the first place. >> whether they were naturalized or not. there are a lot of problems with how they plied. indeed there's an interesting dynamic where the black community, which is typically aligned with the hispanic community has not been vocal. relatively speaking. there would be more power in black communities. they were a high percentage of citizens michael, what is the counter argument. what is the winning counter argument as you see it as the case comes up on the docket in the fall?

>> sure, it comes down to how you define political communities. you could describe them as the community of votiers. but in our country we healed that people should be represented each if they couldn't vote. it was never a question that a civil war widow could have access to her congress men. to an issue related to the widow's pension. as you pointed out. noncitizens pay taxes, ride the subway, have problems with the police they need help children go to public schools, and that really is a functioning political community. >> michael lee with the brennan center for justice. and here with me in washington from the cato institute. thank you for joining us. who wins who losses. if we redraw the maps the

stricts for house sides, what would change. which states would lose seats, which would gain. which person whose vote is tonight's "inside story".

you're watching "inside story". i'm ray suarez. the question we are exploring should elected officials elect citizens or residents. the department of homeland security estimates 2.8 million immigrants were in california. another 1.8 million in texas. 11.5 million nationwide. a state like ohio gets 16 house seats. more than 12 million people are legal residents who are not

citizens. they represent another 18 seats. joining me is the house editor and political analyst. with numbers like that it would bean mean substantial changes. >> yes, and no. i would argue if the results of. it would resufficiently district according to citizens. the impacts that my be felt would be politically fall. i should say, it's far from clear whether the supreme court would touch the notion of how seats are apportioned between states. mote say that it's unlikely that they would affect reportionment. it affects how states apportion district within their open

boundaries. it shifts the bounds of power from urban areas with undocumented residents to wider areas with higher rates of citizenship and eligible voters. >> as we mentioned, it's a case that comes out of texas, it's a case that would not be advantaged by this. when you look at the top three losers theoretically if it was to be decided, the states that may lose congressional seats include california dominated by democrats, and texas, after a sensis where it gaped four seats, would lose four seats. it's hardly what i can imagine the republican party of texas is looking for. unless they want do a democratic wight out. >> that's not what they are

looking for, to be clear. what they are looking for is for texas to maintain 36 seats according to the sepp susses apportionment -- censuses apportion the among the state. they are locking for the legislative lines to be redrawn according to citizenship not residency. at the congressional level they are hoping that texas would maintain its representation and that it would be shifted from areas with low citizenship rates to high. in a state like texas, it means republicans would gain significantly. if we were to set up a fantasy congress in which states were apportioned seats according to citizenship. if texas were to lose four seats in congress. they would come from the democratic column, because south texas is so latino and has such a lower age, and a higher number

of undocumented residents causing reputation to shift north. >> at the same time if you look at a map of united states by percentage of voters. the democratic heartland, the north-east and across to the great lakes is where voters depd to be older, more uniformly naturalized and native born citizens. there would seem to be an advantage there. faster growing states are in areas like florida texas and southern california. >> you may be tempted to think of the mid west and the rust belts as a democratic heartland. when it comes to how the seats are drawn within the states chiefly by republican led demonstrators. they occupied 12 out of 16 house

seats. >> how much are voters worth on boundaries s what is fascinating to me is there's a strict in central los angeles where 41% of residents are voters yet there's a district in central florida. the villages there's a retirement community, where they are close to 81%. we have massive differences across line, and a vote may be words more in some districts than others. would it be fair to say that this would be kind of an earthquake in what is long settle law in this part of life. >> it would be an earthquake. in terms of representation there would be shift, not quite an earthquake in terms of changing faces in congress or in terms

of changing districts. there are certain some states in texas and california among them where you see a deal of upheaval. across most of countries, i don't think it makes a huge difference. >> is this part of the blow back from the supreme court vacating chumps of the voting rights act. >> this is an unrelated aspect of representation in most senses. when you think of the supreme court vacating the formula, the coverage of the voting rights act that specifies some states needed to preclear changes to voting laws and legislation with the department of justice or the federal court. you think of some areas that no longer have to jump through the

hoops. it's how you base the apportionment within the state. >> thank you for joining us. >> i'll be back in a moment with final thoughts on population, representation, and who votes. we encourage you to follow the programme on twitter. if you are always as always you are welcome to visit the facebook page and share your thoughts with other viewers, like you.

the court case at the heart of the debate starts with the idea that someone in an area with a lot of people few voters has more influence. a weighty vote pore someone that heads to the polls with a lot of voters. i wonder if sue is worried about the 650,000 of the distribute of columbia. most are legal sit defense, the vast majority native born and not one has a representative voting in the house of representatives or the united states senate. the people of vermont. and the people of wyoming, fewer in number than d.c. residents have a heavier vote and significantly more influence in

how the countries are run. since their members and senators can make the difference between success and failure. even going to war. no one is heading to the supreme court right now. before we leave you, my thanks to a great organization the educational video center using the arts to help other teems find their way. >> welcome. >> a packed house at new york's iconic lincoln center. it was public school students showing off their work at the educational video center a nonprofit organization providing a creative outlet for teens dealing with perm situations. scar ot holloway oing on a film called "growing apart" a documentary about fractured families.

featuring personal stories, some immigrants whose parents have been deported others like scarlet. struggling to stay in touch with parents behind bars. >> my dad was incarcerated. i blamed my mother. but now seeing that it is expensive to see family members or call them. it causes a separation. >> wednesday's other feature film. brainstorming, deals with teens and action to mental health care. a student using struggles as a jumping off point for a serious discussion. >> it gets out of every topic we go after. truth was a theme throughout the night and al jazeera was front and center. the group recognised me as a journal of the of conscience. >> really what is journal. >> what is being a reporter except telling the truth for a living. that is what we are supposed to do. >> thank you for joining us for "inside story" see you next

time. i'm ray suarez. appear a massive cyber attack on u.s. government computers. up to 4 million affected. hello, you are watching al jazeera. garner copes with its worst disaster in more than a decade. chinese rescue workers recover more bodies as the cap sized ship is raised. >> i'm tom ackerman in