i think that was an excellent summary and i largely agree with the hashim said. just one factual clarification to the disparities in texas and other states are not just a function of fact that certain distance of larger percentages of undocumented aliens but also of documented aliens, aliens and miners living in those districts were not eligible yet developed but will be one day. i would be very surprised if there are five votes to take the plan's position that you must, that the state must drive districts on voting for eligible voting lines. i think the real question is what the course is about the discretion that the states have to deviate from total population. the reason i think would be very surprising in addition to those of hashim offered which i think they're pretty compelling are one coming with me upsetting the practices of all 50 states for 50 years, or almost uniform practice of all 50 states for 50 years, not something the court is going to be eager to do. and also would seem to set up a system in which the rule, and this is the argument made by the

hashim will present that. >> so this is a case that involves the one-person, one-vote doctrine. it raises fairly fundamental questions about the scope of that doctrine that you would think would have been decided quite a long time ago, and that have fairly major implications for how elections are run in this country. so it could be potentially a very significant case. the basic one-person, one-vote doctrine. >> i'm sure everyone here is aware, during the warren court, the supreme court held that when states are drawing districts and divvying up a legislative body into districts and putting people into each of those districts for voting, the state has to basically have a fair amount of equality between the districts. you can't have certain districts which have much greater populations than other districts, because that gives the districts with smaller amounts of people unequal and unfairly greater voting power. but what the court has never really grappled with in modified cases is what exactly you're trying to eequalize. are you trying to equalize the total number of people in ea

>> my question is for hashim. you kept saying voters and suggesting that felons would not count, but are they asking for literal eligible voters or citizen voting age population? >> the cameras are asking if you have questions, come to the mic. it's not being picked up. >> i'm sorry. i'll mumble it now. you kept saying voters and you suggested, for example, that prisones in rural areas wouldn' be counted because they're felons, but are they asking for voters that are literally eligible to vote or citizen voting age population, because the results are different? >> the plaintiffs' brief is a little agnostic about it. as i read it, they're focused on eligible voters. now, there are a lot of different metrics for how you measure eligible voters. the most common is the statistic reference which is called the cvap, the citizen voting age population, but it's not a perfect proxy for eligible voters because there are plenty of people who are citizen voting age but nevertheless are not able to vote. again, i think that so

. >> meet hashim.nbelievably beautiful and diverse. >> a vegetable curry? >> a yogurt-based curry. >> vegetables again? surprisingly, not a problem. it's good. this is one of the few places in the world that i could eat vegetarian every day and still be happy. most of the people in this part farmers? agriculture? >> yeah. >> what are they growing? >> corn, potatoes, peas. >> and weed? people grow marijuana? >> yes, loads. >> as an export product or for personal use? for -- >> everything. a mix of everything. so you think you want to go check out the fair? >> yeah, let's take a walk through town and see what's going on? >> the occasion for all these mountain villages to come together and specialize. >> right. >> because people are busy in their farms. they're not going to come down and socialize with people. but this, you know, because it's autumn, everything is done with all the together. now they are just bearing down for winter. there's a lot of romance in the air. >> i've been to mumbai, calcutta, s

from total population to the reason i think it would be very surprising in addition to those that hashim offered which are compelling would mean upsetting the 50 states for 50 years where is uniform practice. not something the court is going to be eager to do and also would seem to set up a system in which the rule for and this is an argument made by the chief justice when he was the deputies acting deputy solicitor general in a case a couple of decades ago. it would be an odd result that the apportionment standards that states have to use to distribute their congressional seats is something that is prohibited to them. this is about state legislatures so that i.t. makes it unlikely. the real action i think will be whether and how the court says it agrees with texas that the states have discretion to deviate from total population. so it will be interesting to see this friday when a command whether any of the amici argue that states in fact have to use total population and most of them have for 50 years. whether that's a constitutional requirement to think it's more likely that many people

hashim mooppan is a folder where he focuses on the supreme court and appellate litigation. erin murphy is a partner at bancroft where she also focuses on supreme court and appellate litigation. and david cole is another constitutional law professor at georgetown. before i turn things over to the panel, let me give you a very brief introduction to the term until you about the format for today's program. the story of last term event, the left side of the court did a lot of winning. that happen not only in the two momentous cases involving same-sex marriage and the availability of subsidies on the federal health care exchange, but in almost every big case decided last term. justice kennedy was the justice who usually joined the left side of the court in those cases, but the chief justice and even justice thomas occasionally either acted to or provided the margin of victory. this term i would expect a return to the norm. in which the right side of the court wins the majority, but by no means all of the big cases, with justice kennedy idea and a key vote in most of the big cases

. >> my question is for hashim. you kept saying voters and suggested -- [inaudible] aren't asking for voters or are they asking for citizen voting age population? >> the cameras are asking that if you have questions come to the mic. it's not being picked up. >> i'm sorry. i will mumble it now. you kept saying voters and suggested, for example, that prisons in rural areas would not be counted because they are felons. but are they asking for voters that are literally eligible to vote or of asking for citizen age voting population? results are different. >> so the brief is a little come the plaintiffs a brief vessel agnostic about. as i read it there focus on eligible voters. there are a lot of different metrics for how you measure eligible voters. the most common is, reference which called this event, citizen age voting population. it isn't actually a perfect proxy for eligible voters because there are people who are citizen of voting age but nevertheless not able to vote again i think that's what please off the admin

hashim mooppan is a partner at jones day, where he focuses on supreme court and appellate litigation.erin murphy is a partner at bancroft, where she also focuses on supreme court and appellate litigation. and david cole is another constitutional law professor at georgetown. before i turn things over to the panel, let me give you a very brief introduction to the term and tell you about the format for today's program. the story of last term is that the left side of the court did a lot of winning. that happened not only in the two momentous cases involving