l. What is the name of the case?
Evenwel Et Al. V. Abbott, Governor of Texas, Et Al. No. 14–940.

2. In what year did the Supreme Court decide the case?
This case was decided on April 4, 2016

3. What circumstances triggered the dispute?
The Texas Constitution mandates that the state legislature reapportion its legislative districts after each ten-year census. Sue Evenwell is a registered voter in Texas challenging the manner in which the state designs its legislative districts. In 2013, Texas began a new redistricting plan in Plan S172 that redistricts areas on the basis of total population. Evenwell, et al. contend that the one-person, one-vote principle requires states to divide their districts so that they each comprise a substantially equal number of eligible voters. They were backed by an organization called the Project on Fair Representation. Abbott, the governor of Texas, et al. contends that the Constitution makes no specific requirements about how a state equalizes their voting districts and they are free to designate districts on the basis of total population counts. The district court had dismissed the case, ruling that Evenwell did not show that Plan S172 would not be able to safeguard the “one-person, one-vote” clause.

4. What statute or action triggered the dispute?
Texas’ redistricting plan S172.

5. What provision of the Constitution is at issue?
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the long-standing principle of “one person, one vote.”

6. What is the basic legal question(s) the Court is being asked to address?
Does the Fourteenth Amendment’s “one person, one vote” clause allow states to frame their legislative districts using total population or does it require states to use specified voter populations? Can Texas utilize total population as its basis for apportioning its legislative districts?

7. What was the outcome of the dispute?
The court ruled in favor of Governor Abb...