The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in a case that could redefine the meaning of the "one person, one vote" concept in American democracy and, in turn, disproportionately hurt communities of color.

Two plaintiffs from Texas being supported by a conservative group are challenging the way that states draw their legislative lines in Evenwel v. Abbott. As of now, states include all people counted by the U.S. Census when they draw districts to determine political representation. This rule was determined by a 1964 Supreme Court ruling that decided state legislative districts must be drawn so they are equal in population, reports Yahoo! News. The court, however, did not explicitly defined whether the doctrine applies to general population or voting population.

Now, the two Texas voters are arguing that their vote is being diluted in relation to voters in other districts. According to them, states should count only voters and Texas should look primarily at the total number of eligible voters when it draws district lines.

"From the beginning, the fundamental purpose of the one-person, one-vote principle has been to ensure that the states apportion districts in a way that protects the right of eligible voters to an equal vote," said lawyers representing the lead plaintiff, Sue Evenwel, in court filings, reports CNN. "It necessarily follows that requiring the states to apportion approximately the same number of eligible voters to each district is the only way to enforce that constitutional right."

If the court decides in their favor, then a number of people would no longer be represented, including children under the age of 18, undocumented immigrants and former felons who have lost the right to vote. Redefining "one person, one vote" to mean "one voter, one vote" would also mean that up to 55 percent of Latinos, 45 percent of Asian Americans, and 30 percent of African Americans would no longer be counted, reports Time.

Civil rights groups say that if the plaintiffs prevail, then Latino communities with a large population of undocumented residents will be sharply disadvantaged. As a result, this could potentially shift power from urban areas to rural areas that are more likely to favor Republicans.

Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert from the University of California, Irvine School of Law, says the plaintiffs in the case are trying to "help the Republican Party capture more congressional and state legislative districts in places that have large Latino noncitizen populations."

Likewise, Penda Hair, the co-director of the Advancement Project, issued a statement, saying, "To reverse course now is to shun precedent and needlessly engineer a plan to bring harm on a specific subset of people; namely communities of color -- including children -- undocumented individuals and families, persons with prior felony convictions and individuals with disabilities."