Whether the Salyer-Ball exception to the one-person, one-vote population equality requirement ought to apply to local government representatives chosen in unrestricted, open-franchise popular elections

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In its Avery v. Midland County, Hadley v. Junior College District, and Morris v. Board of Estimate line of cases, this Court has held that political units are subject to the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal population rule for electoral districts. In its Salyer and Ball cases, the Court created a narrow exception for certain political units to diverge from that population equality rule when the electoral franchise is highly restricted, and those allowed to participate in the election are electing representatives who would perform functions more closely associated with non-governmental entities. In the four decades since recognizing this exception, the Court has not articulated an effective test for lower courts to determine which line of authority governs a political unit with representatives who are chosen through open-franchise elections, and whose power is more akin to traditional government functions. The questions presented are thus: 1. Whether the Salyer-Ball exception to the oneperson, one-vote population equality requirement ought to apply to local government representatives chosen in unrestricted, open-franchise popular elections. 2. Where the narrow Salyer-Ball exception does apply, what limits are necessary to ensure that voters who bear the overwhelming burden of financing a special purpose unit of government, which exercises at least some _ general governmental powers, are not unconstitutionally deprived of an equally weighted vote compared to those who bear no such financial burden but reap the benefit of ii that special purpose unit’s exercise of governmental power. 3. Whether an electoral scheme designed to afford more weight to voters based exclusively on the geographical region where they reside can ever pass muster under rational basis review.