The right to cast a meaningful vote, equal in value to other votes, is a fundamental tenet US elections. Despite the 1964 Supreme Court decision formally establishing the one person, one vote principle as a legal requirement of elections, our democracy consistently falls short of it. With mechanisms including the winner-take-all format in the Electoral College, disproportioned geographic allocation of senators, extreme partisan gerrymandering in the House of Representatives, and first-past-the-post elections, many voters experience severe vote dilution. <br/><br/>In order to legitimize our democratic structures, American elections should be reformed so every person’s vote has equal weight, ensuring that the election outcomes reflect the will of the people. Altering the current election structure to include more proportional structures including rank choice voting and population-based representation, will result in a democracy more compatible with the one person, one vote principle.

Descriptive representation is important to building and maintaining a fair court system, especially within a context of historical oppression by race or gender. Using official government biographies, voter rolls, news articles, and press releases, I collected demographic information on the judges of Arizona and compared it to Census data, to show how under representative the state courts of Arizona currently are. Through the use of non-attorney judges, the Justice Court of Arizona has become the most representative level of the state court. Almost all of the BIPOC judges of the Justice Court are not attorneys. Allowing non-attorney Justices of the Peace has made it possible for the court to be more representative of Arizonans. However, even though it is the most representative state court, the Justice Court vastly under represents women and BIPOC as judges. As racial tension and movements for fairness under the law increase, it is important to challenge how the courts could better serve Arizona.