Chris Esposito mug

Kenneth Parson’s column (“Unequal representation is unconstitutional,” Aug. 3) needs both correction and context, as he fundamentally misunderstands the history of Reynolds v. Sims (377 U.S. 533 (1964)), the actual governing majority opinion (6-3, with 2 concurrences, and 1 dissent that ignored precedent of Baker v. Carr) that defines what is constitutional, and the implications for local application.

When filed in 1962, Alabama’s legislative districts reflected the population numbers from the census in 1900. From then through the early 1960s, the population of urban districts had grown enormously, thus diluting the votes of urban residents. This meant that rural votes carried more weight, and the ruling was that unequal populations of legislative districts gave rise to violation of the equal protection clause.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren wrote that “legislators represent people, not trees or acres” and “legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.” The requirement then was that legislative districts, with some exceptions allowed, were to be “as nearly equal of population as is practicable.” The land area over which these subpopulations are spread (e.g., counties) is not particularly relevant, as the population must always be the “controlling consideration” in state districting. The key point is that equal representation was defined as legislative representation proportional to district population. Alabama was far from the only state reluctant (often to the point of a court order) to update legislative maps in the face of demographic shifts, particularly if such updates would reduce the dominance of rural districts.

If Oregon followed the “equal population” rule, what you would get is some combination of fewer districts in sparsely populated areas (in order to aggregate enough people over larger geographic areas) and a greater number of districts where the population is denser. If you look at a state legislative district map, this is the pattern that you see, as predicted.

It’s important to understand the various different meanings of “equal” here in equal population rule. An individual vote in rural Oregon counts neither more nor less than one cast in urban Oregon. But no region or demographic group is entitled or guaranteed to have equality in outcomes or aggregate power when compared to any other. Absent some clear violation of law, that the losing side in an election may not get what they want is a basic feature of democracy working as it is designed to work, not a flaw. Again from the majority opinion: “Logically, in a society ostensibly grounded on representative government, it would seem reasonable that a majority of the people of a State could elect a majority of that State’s legislators. To conclude differently, and to sanction minority control of state legislative bodies, would appear to deny majority rights in a way that far surpasses any possible denial of minority rights that might otherwise be thought to result.”

The proposal that the state senate be made up of a single senator from each county is exactly minority control, as a majority of the counties with a minority of the population could then dictate statewide law. This would simply recreate the unequal representation scenario that Reynolds v. Sims ruled on.

More generally, it’s difficult to take Mr. Parson’s claim that rural Oregon is uniquely a victim of unequal representation as a sincere good-faith argument. As historical context, for many decades the political and social conservatives have worked assiduously to create a political and legal environment that is as unequal as possible — gerrymandering districts, voter suppression, objections to the Civil Rights Act, and most recently the well-documented attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Equal representation has never been their goal; special rights for conservatives is, and ought to be soundly rejected.

As of the 2020 Census, Oregon state senators represented an average of 141,383 residents, a number that is periodically adjusted to keep proportionality in the face of changing census data. The redistricting plan was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court against two challenges — see Sheehan/Calderwood v. Legislative Assembly (368 Or 739 (2021). The Calderwood petitioners acknowledge that the map as passed “serve the requirement at ORS 188.010(1)(b) that districts “be of equal population.” The claim in the column that rural Oregon voters are unconstitutionally disadvantaged is therefore false.