Justice Scalia Textualist

Justice Scalia is a prominent figure on the present-day Supreme Court. He 's known for immensely expressing his feelings toward a case and can quite likely hurt a person 's feelings. He does not believe in shying away from his opinion, especially when ruling on a case. In previous cases regarding reapportionment, Justice Scalia has made references pertaining to the Constitution that ultimately demonstrates that he is a textualist and an originalist. The term textualist can be defined as a justices method of interpreting a statute 's legislation, however it does not go beyond the initial purpose of the legislators who created the law. In an interview on a radio news station known as NPR called “Scalia Vigorously Defends a 'Dead '

Thus, pertaining to the issue of reapportionment, John Mackenzie wrote an article “Gerrymandering and Legislator Efficiency” it states that in the Constitution, there is nothing that says states need to draw district 's boundaries based on their representatives.Nor does it discuss the Constitution providing any right to proportional representation . Furthermore, in the issue of reapportionment relating to the Evenwell case, this case raises the issue of voter inequality pertaining to how a vote should be considered. Sue Evenwel, suggests in her appeal that the state of Texas should use a method known as the Citizen’s Voting Age Population. Unlike the traditional method that Texas government uses, that considers everyone a voter including those who are not citizens and of age to vote in the total population. This method depending on the district you live in can affect your vote in numerous ways. In some instances, your vote is diluted based on the district you reside in,this creates a disparity where one vote weighs more than another. Sue Evenwel’s suggests that the Citizens Voting Age Population, if the justices of the court vote in favor of it would filter out the total population. Meaning it would exclude non-citizens and those not of voting age be eligible

In an op-ed written by Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres for the LA Times called “In Supreme Court redistricting case, it 's the 'whole number of persons. '” The op-ed predicts how Scalia would initially vote in the Evenwel case, “so long as Justice Antonin Scalia takes originalism seriously, this should be the end of the matter: It 's the 'whole number of persons ' that is of critical importance”. Representation is a substantive and crucial aspect to the United States of America’s principles and the Constitution supports this claim. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment granted those individuals who were not recognized as citizens, rights such as voting, equal protection, citizenship and due process to all the rights under the Constitution. However, Justice Scalia reason for perhaps ruling against Evenwel has a lot to do with the Constitution and precedent cases involving reapportionment. Justice Scalia would most likely write a dissenting opinion pouring out the issues this case presents. Not only that, but would call out justices stances on the case, for example Chief Justice questions if the case needs substantive information. This decision should not be up to the courts, but to the states. The role of the courts is to interpret the Constitution and distinguishing the lines between what is constitutional and unconstitutional and since there is nothing specifically stated in the Constitution on the redistricting of districts, it is not our duty to decide this case.”