From Reynolds vs. Sims:
“if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Of course, the effect of ... districting schemes which give the same number of representatives to unequal numbers of constituents is identical. Overweighting and overvaluation of the votes of those living here has the certain effect of dilution and undervaluation of the votes of those living there. The resulting discrimination against those individual voters living in disfavored areas is easily demonstrable mathematically. Their right to vote is simply not the same right to vote as that of those living in a favored part of the State.”
“if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Of course, the effect of ... districting schemes which give the same number of representatives to unequal numbers of constituents is identical. Overweighting and overvaluation of the votes of those living here has the certain effect of dilution and undervaluation of the votes of those living there. The resulting discrimination against those individual voters living in disfavored areas is easily demonstrable mathematically. Their right to vote is simply not the same right to vote as that of those living in a favored part of the State.”
Representatives do not exist only to be elected. They exist to forge a connection between all of their constituents, and the government. My mother was a (legal) resident alien for decades. My husband is one. They pay taxes, own property, and have legal standing. Kids also have status, and deserve & need representation. Surely our are all constituents of out representatives; and surely the attention of their representatives should not be diluted by treating certain people as non-people.
2
If we take the phrasing of Reynolds v. Sims to its logical extreme, it would suggest not that we should use registered voters as a basis, but rather votes actually cast in each race. Thus, if in District #1 there are 2000 total votes cast for state senator, while in District #2 only 1000 are cast, that to be fail District 2 should get two senators, 'safeguarding an individual’s vote “when compared with votes of citizens living in other parts of the state.”'. If that sounds absurd, why doesn't the plaintiffs' argument?
When is a citizen not counted as a represented citizen? When they are a child? When they have never registered to vote? When they are overseas during a census? When the HUAC says they are 'UnAmerican'? Who gets to decide who will not be counted?
Above the Supreme Court Building entrance the inscription does not read "Equal Justice for Registered Voters Only".
When is a citizen not counted as a represented citizen? When they are a child? When they have never registered to vote? When they are overseas during a census? When the HUAC says they are 'UnAmerican'? Who gets to decide who will not be counted?
Above the Supreme Court Building entrance the inscription does not read "Equal Justice for Registered Voters Only".
3
Voter turnout here in Lowell has been abysmal for both local and state elections. Protecting voter rights is fine but when those eligible to vote do not show up, their victimuenza is questionable.
Anglos "will move closer to the ends of their life spans at nearly three times the rate that Hispanics will"
What a ridiculously worded statement. Each Anglo person will grow older three times faster than a Latino person does? Is that like "dog years" vs "people years"?
Or is the writer trying to say that the average age of Anglos will be gradually higher than the average age of Latinos (due to the much larger birth rate among Latinos)?
Then say that. This habit I've noticed of increasingly wacky wording in attempts to assure that statistics are more easily grasped by us dumb readers is kind of insulting and counterproductive. It is beneath the Times' copy editing standards.
What a ridiculously worded statement. Each Anglo person will grow older three times faster than a Latino person does? Is that like "dog years" vs "people years"?
Or is the writer trying to say that the average age of Anglos will be gradually higher than the average age of Latinos (due to the much larger birth rate among Latinos)?
Then say that. This habit I've noticed of increasingly wacky wording in attempts to assure that statistics are more easily grasped by us dumb readers is kind of insulting and counterproductive. It is beneath the Times' copy editing standards.
1
There are a few implications from the Citizens United decision that could be cited here:
1) If corporations are persons, will each individual corporation be allocated a vote? And could we not eventually reach a state of affairs where CORPORATIONS are the only eligible voters, all individual others having been disqualified by one means or another?
2) This is perhaps less relevant to the voting eligibility question, but the Citizens United decision also held money (as political contributions) to be the equivalent of protected free speech. But money is better considered as a form of action, or more precisely as the enablement of action. Could that mean that ACTIONS themselves could also be treated as protected speech, skipping the intermediation of money? This could lead to the absurdity of an act of terrorism being claimed as protected free speech, the more so because it "expresses" a point of view. And - another thing - if contributions to political and other organizations are considered protected free speech, could this not be claimed for contributions to a domestic "front" for a terrorist organization?
1) If corporations are persons, will each individual corporation be allocated a vote? And could we not eventually reach a state of affairs where CORPORATIONS are the only eligible voters, all individual others having been disqualified by one means or another?
2) This is perhaps less relevant to the voting eligibility question, but the Citizens United decision also held money (as political contributions) to be the equivalent of protected free speech. But money is better considered as a form of action, or more precisely as the enablement of action. Could that mean that ACTIONS themselves could also be treated as protected speech, skipping the intermediation of money? This could lead to the absurdity of an act of terrorism being claimed as protected free speech, the more so because it "expresses" a point of view. And - another thing - if contributions to political and other organizations are considered protected free speech, could this not be claimed for contributions to a domestic "front" for a terrorist organization?
1
The supreme court should just declare that only republicants can vote, they might actually win some...
1
We need to extend the vote not just to undocumented immigrants, but to the citizens of every other nation on Earth. Just think of them as undocumented immigrants that have simply saved themselves the trouble of walking across the southern border.
Do they not have a stake in who is the President of the United States? Why should they not be able to vote for a candidate that will promise them the benefits of our cradle to grave welfare state? Are they not humans? Don't people of all creeds and colors and languages deserve to have their needs met by the US taxpayer?
To say otherwise is simply racism. We elected President Obama to fundamentally transform America. What could be moreso than extending the good will of the US taxpayer to everyone on Earth? If Mexican citizens here illegally can collect US tax dollars, then everyone should.
Do they not have a stake in who is the President of the United States? Why should they not be able to vote for a candidate that will promise them the benefits of our cradle to grave welfare state? Are they not humans? Don't people of all creeds and colors and languages deserve to have their needs met by the US taxpayer?
To say otherwise is simply racism. We elected President Obama to fundamentally transform America. What could be moreso than extending the good will of the US taxpayer to everyone on Earth? If Mexican citizens here illegally can collect US tax dollars, then everyone should.
1
People = people. Representatives represent everyone in their districts, not just voters.
4
The history of Republican machinations to disenfranchise minority voters since the Supreme Court nullified Section 5 clearly belies arguments made at that time that electoral discrimination was no longer an issue. Can the Roberts Court be oblivious to the virtual Jim Crow assault on voting rights that they precipitated? Any of the conservative (or reactionary) justices who vote that way are no more than political operatives savaging the constitution for their personal prejudice.
3
Of course neither eligible voters nor raw population ought be the basis for district representation. The deeper historic sense is “No taxation without representation”.
But the outnumbering of taxpayers by tax-consumers in essence lowers the representation of the people paying taxes.
Taxpayers and taxpayers only should be counted towards a district’s population.
Further, the Constitution sets conditions on the election Federal offices only. The states are to be sovereign and are to decide how they wish to be governed./
But the outnumbering of taxpayers by tax-consumers in essence lowers the representation of the people paying taxes.
Taxpayers and taxpayers only should be counted towards a district’s population.
Further, the Constitution sets conditions on the election Federal offices only. The states are to be sovereign and are to decide how they wish to be governed./
1
What I find interesting about this case is that it seems to ignore the other side of the argument: That the government, through elected officials, provides services for all residents, not just "eligible voters." Children, convicts and illegal immigrants use state roads or public schools or prisons supported by taxpayer funds administered by elected officials. Why isn't the argument that elected officials are responsible for providing those services to all of the people living in their district used to support the population theory?
2
The issue not whether all residents should be counted for the purpose of apportioning representatives to the House of Representatives, but whether non-citizens and children under voting age must be counted when drawing congressional voting districts. Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment penalizes states only if they deny voting right to citizens of voting age. “But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.” This implies states do not have to count noncitizens and children under voting age in designing voting districts. Not counting noncitizens and children does not disenfranchised them They are already disenfranchised because of their citizenship status and age.
1
My goodness!
Back in the day when the racists were openly in charge in the South, they had no problem counting their slaves as 3/5 ths of a person. That's better than what the children would get under this newer crypto-racist initiative.
ED BLUM: You callin' me a racist?! I'm for fairness, not racism.
ARBITROT: Uh huh. But say, aren't you the same Ed Blum who lost a Congressional race back in the early 90s to a black man in Texas and vowed that you would then dedicate your life to overturning the VRA [check: Namudno and Shelby County v. Holder] and any form of affirmative action [on the cusp of checking that one into the W column as well with Fisher v. University of Texas]?
ED BLUM: Yeah. So what?
ARBITROT: Funny, how every time you work the fairness beat, it's minorities who end up getting shafted by the Five Amigos on SCOTUS.
ED BLUM: Sez you. You don't really hold to the quaint democratic social contract notion that someone who votes is voting also for what she perceives to be the interests of her children?
ARBITROT: Oh, I see. Ones slaves? Yes, representation, at least 2/3rds worth. Ones children? Bupkis. And all those electoral votes Texas might lose?
ED BLUM: Won't happen. We'll just Three Card Monty over to another part of the Constitution, and John "The way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating" Roberts, and the other Four Amigos who have lived their lives to obsolete the treacheries of the Warren Court, will join us in this new Birth of Freedom.
Back in the day when the racists were openly in charge in the South, they had no problem counting their slaves as 3/5 ths of a person. That's better than what the children would get under this newer crypto-racist initiative.
ED BLUM: You callin' me a racist?! I'm for fairness, not racism.
ARBITROT: Uh huh. But say, aren't you the same Ed Blum who lost a Congressional race back in the early 90s to a black man in Texas and vowed that you would then dedicate your life to overturning the VRA [check: Namudno and Shelby County v. Holder] and any form of affirmative action [on the cusp of checking that one into the W column as well with Fisher v. University of Texas]?
ED BLUM: Yeah. So what?
ARBITROT: Funny, how every time you work the fairness beat, it's minorities who end up getting shafted by the Five Amigos on SCOTUS.
ED BLUM: Sez you. You don't really hold to the quaint democratic social contract notion that someone who votes is voting also for what she perceives to be the interests of her children?
ARBITROT: Oh, I see. Ones slaves? Yes, representation, at least 2/3rds worth. Ones children? Bupkis. And all those electoral votes Texas might lose?
ED BLUM: Won't happen. We'll just Three Card Monty over to another part of the Constitution, and John "The way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating" Roberts, and the other Four Amigos who have lived their lives to obsolete the treacheries of the Warren Court, will join us in this new Birth of Freedom.
1
“Population [in this context] means every person.” That’s the nub. Should non-citizens count in electoral decisions? If yes, then California gains huge, disproportionate Electoral College power. And the election-tilting incentive to flood certain states with non-citizens becomes obvious.
1
The entire article talks about potential exclusion of representation only in terms of undocumented immigrants, apparently due to the specific facts of the situation on the ground in Texas. But one major group that will continue to be disproportionally disenfranchised are people with a prison record, a group which significantly tilts black and hispanic. I personally do not think that the racial and ethnic composition of our prison populations reflects the rate at which they commit crimes in our society, but rather is as much a reflection of how our criminal justice system sifts and assigns blame disproportionately to some elements of society over others. Regardless of that, the extraordinary rate at which America jails its citizens - rates higher than the former Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes around the world - combined with rules denying voting rights to convicted felons guarantees disenfranchisement of millions and millions of American citizens of voting age. Combine that with the racial composition of that population - well, it becomes very apparent why these disenfranchisement rules are in place. The ruling in this case has the potential to have wide effects over the entirety of America, not just some border regions.
2
Once again, beware of unintended consequences. Let's say the Supreme Court maintains the current "all persons" basis for drawing districts. So far, so good. But, having previously decided that corporations are people, what if the Court follows its own logic and includes this particular group of New Americans, corporations, for representation purposes? Suddenly, tiny Delaware with close to a million corporations rates more representation in the Electoral College. And that includes around 2/3 of the Fortune 500 companies with free speech rights to spend unlimited money to influence the political process.
A few years back, libertarians started a movement to move to and take over New Hampshire. A few years before that, white supremicists were trying the same with Idaho. A couple decades earlier a significant number of Blacks advocated such for themselves in Mississippi (or Alabama, I'm not certain which), with secession thrown in to the pot. All those efforts, fortunately for America, went nowhere. But all corporations moving to Delaware as a wholly owned subsidiary state of the Fortune 500............. Hmmmm..........
A few years back, libertarians started a movement to move to and take over New Hampshire. A few years before that, white supremicists were trying the same with Idaho. A couple decades earlier a significant number of Blacks advocated such for themselves in Mississippi (or Alabama, I'm not certain which), with secession thrown in to the pot. All those efforts, fortunately for America, went nowhere. But all corporations moving to Delaware as a wholly owned subsidiary state of the Fortune 500............. Hmmmm..........
3
Until the last year, I never imagined that counts of illegal immigrants were used to apportion districts. This is crazy. It should include every person who is legally resident there ... no tourists, no illegal persons.
The current "count every body" has some ridiculous implications, even if hypothetical. For instance, if the census coincided with the Olympics in a city, should every athlete, reporter and spectator be counted? Or even more far-fetch, if Canada invaded and occupied Seattle with 300,000 troops, should they theoretically be counted. Of course not.
Finally, many of the comments seem to be focused on the political implications. We need to focus on what makes long-term sense for a democracy, not who is going to lose or gain short-term political power.
The current "count every body" has some ridiculous implications, even if hypothetical. For instance, if the census coincided with the Olympics in a city, should every athlete, reporter and spectator be counted? Or even more far-fetch, if Canada invaded and occupied Seattle with 300,000 troops, should they theoretically be counted. Of course not.
Finally, many of the comments seem to be focused on the political implications. We need to focus on what makes long-term sense for a democracy, not who is going to lose or gain short-term political power.
1
Welcome to the latest right-wing effort at political eugenics as they try to restore the glory of the 3/5 Compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention.
The debate then was over whether slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes.
The 3/5 Compromise gave the southern states (the soon-to-be Confederacy) a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored while of course banning slaves the right to actually vote.
This allowed plantation-owning slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1865, at which point the 13th and 14th Amendments superseded the 3/5 Compromise.
The Supreme Court, if it has any human decency, appreciation of justice, or understanding of representative democracy, should refer the plaintiffs of the case - Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger and the Project on Fair Representation - to the US Attorney General for prosecution of sedition and treason against the United States of America.
These people and the bankrupt right-wing that actively supports them don't believe in voting, democracy or the First Amendment by non-whites and they represent a clear and present danger to the very idea of America.
The plaintiffs miss the Old Confederacy; they deserve prison time for trying to overthrow the government.
The debate then was over whether slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes.
The 3/5 Compromise gave the southern states (the soon-to-be Confederacy) a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored while of course banning slaves the right to actually vote.
This allowed plantation-owning slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1865, at which point the 13th and 14th Amendments superseded the 3/5 Compromise.
The Supreme Court, if it has any human decency, appreciation of justice, or understanding of representative democracy, should refer the plaintiffs of the case - Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger and the Project on Fair Representation - to the US Attorney General for prosecution of sedition and treason against the United States of America.
These people and the bankrupt right-wing that actively supports them don't believe in voting, democracy or the First Amendment by non-whites and they represent a clear and present danger to the very idea of America.
The plaintiffs miss the Old Confederacy; they deserve prison time for trying to overthrow the government.
5
The three-fifths compromise reduced the number of seats that would have been allotted to Southern states in the House of Representatives. If all residents had been counted equally, Southern states would have dominated the House as well as the Senate. Northern delegates to the constitutional convention thought no slaves should be counted because slaves could note vote. The argument today is that noncitizens and children under voting age should not count because they are not allowed to vote.
If the US Supreme Court decides that representation is determined by voting age, not head count, what happens to the Electoral College. Wouldn't Texas lose its gains in Electoral Votes? That seems pretty significant and, it would seem, the antithesis of what the Republicans have been trying to accomplish with voter suppression. It could be a pyrrhic victory. And, just to project into the future, what happens in Texas and the other border states when those children do turn 18 - guess we'll have to find out how the GOP plans to attend to that dilemma.
5
Susan, Texas is not a haven for illegal immigrants; California is. What happens, you ask. California will lose four electoral votes, and that will be a great thing for America.
1
Nothing would happen to the allocation of representatives to the House of Representatives or Electoral College votes. The issue is the design of voting districts, which the Constitution leaves up to the states as long as they do not discriminate based on race, sex, religions or ethnicity. States can opt not to country noncitizens and children under voting age. I think under age children should count, but not noncitizens.
1
One taxpayer, one vote. In Texas, sales taxes are the primary means of funding the State. To change that would result in taxation without representation. We all know how conservatives feel about that unconstitutional approach.
6
And this coming from the "family values" party? What a way to enshrine the family, let's make sure children literally don't count.
7
This could be a slippery slope to yet more vote and representation suppression. I see it leading to loss of the secret ballot to prevent voter fraud, limitations concerning wealth of the voter, and the age of the citizens as in "First they came for the 'babies and toddlers' ".
11
If the concept of basing representation on "eligible voters" is supported, will those states, such as Texas which gained congressional seats, be obligated to reduce the "population" base which granted them the additional representatives?
It seems to follow logically, that if only eligible voters count then only eligible voters should be counted in determining a states' population for congressional purposes. Could this concept be extended to "only registered voters" or even only "participating voters", thereby further affecting the allocation of seats more towards states with higher percentages of registered and actual voters, further reducing the influence of states with larger percentages of unregistered individuals, non-voters, children, felons, immigrants, and so on. And then they came for me.
It seems to follow logically, that if only eligible voters count then only eligible voters should be counted in determining a states' population for congressional purposes. Could this concept be extended to "only registered voters" or even only "participating voters", thereby further affecting the allocation of seats more towards states with higher percentages of registered and actual voters, further reducing the influence of states with larger percentages of unregistered individuals, non-voters, children, felons, immigrants, and so on. And then they came for me.
14
The basis of Congressional representation is hard-wired in the Constitution (Section 2 of the 14th amendment) as based on "counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed." There is a cutback if voting rights are denied to U.S. citizens who are both male and at least 21 years old ("except for participation in rebellion, or other crime"). These provisions make it quite clear to me that the Court's decision in Evenwel will not affect apportionment of congressional seats among states.
Thank you NY Times for informing us on this crucial issue. How about an article on electronic voting machines another great threat to democracy?
9
As I’ve written in our Disenfranchised series, the gutting of Section 5 facilitated an onslaught of restrictive new laws that made voting disproportionately harder for minorities across the country, marking the biggest setback to minority voting rights in the half-century since President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act.
=========================
All this huffing and puffing about voters being "disenfranchised" yet you never produce the name of a single real person who has been prevented from voting.
=========================
All this huffing and puffing about voters being "disenfranchised" yet you never produce the name of a single real person who has been prevented from voting.
7
There were plenty of examples in the news in 2012, mostly elderly people who had hot had problems voting before the voter ID laws took effect. If your only sources of information are right-wing media, I'm not surprised that you wouldn't be aware of these incidences, which contradict the "no one has been prevented from voting" narrative.
2
All this huffing and puffing about "voter fraud" yet you never produce the name of a single real person who has voted fraudulently.
3
Whoa. People need to wake up and follow this closely. There is something very dangerous going on here. Basing districts on eligible voters rather than population? That could end up to mean all those people who are affected by laws passed but were not counted in the district are basically governed by an elite that are counted. Example: A small minority of white people in a largely Hispanic district where many of the Hispanics who could vote but don't have proper ID (and therefore aren't on the voter rolls)...well the minority could pass laws very discriminatory to the rest. That would be such a perversion of democracy, to say the least. I am getting afraid for our country more and more.
8
The original framers of the Constitution were pretty clear that they meant to count people, not eligible voters. After all, they even included slaves, at 3/5ths of a person. So it will be interesting to see if Justice Scalia, who always claims to be an "originalist", follows the framers in this case, or goes with ideology.
8
Actually, the 3/5 person rule was the compromise created by the Founders so the slave states would get more representation in Congress, in return for supporting the Constitution. It's ironic that the state of Texas is opposing this case, since Texas gets more representatives based upon the illegal and "green card" population who either don't or can't vote. Presently, these folks are "ghetto-ized" into (heavily) majority Democratic districts, so their vote (or non-vote) is meaningless anyway. I believe that an affirmative vote would actually enhance the Dems who actually vote - this population would have to be "spread" into (lightly majority) Repub districts, diluting their present strength.
And how do we count these "undocumented?" The same folks who complain that there is "disenfrachisement" afoot are the ones who don't want to ferret out the "undocumented" -- except when it is convenient for them to be documented. Document them for apportionment, but not law enforcement (i.e., deportation). If we are to be consistent, fine, but if we are to pick and choose--then Texas is doing exactly that, and Ms. Bazelon's gripe is really her choices just happen to be different. That doesn't make them Constitutionally mandated.
4
The issue of the undocumented is where conservatives are going with this, but, as many other comments have mentioned, there are plenty of other types of people that are not registered voters, like children, the homeless, etc. Everyone, including the undocumented must be counted. City, county and state resources are not limited only to registered voters. Not counting everyone will not only affect the number of delegates for the electoral college, but also federal funding based on population numbers.
2
SCOTUS did not gut the Voting Rights Act. The ruling simply said that all 50 states should be treated the same.
4
The comment by ebmem:
"all 50 states should be treated the same."
makes sense if and only if all 50 states treat individuals the same. If states are to be treated the same, We The People should be treated likewise.
"all 50 states should be treated the same."
makes sense if and only if all 50 states treat individuals the same. If states are to be treated the same, We The People should be treated likewise.
2
Elected representative represent all of the people living in a district - not just the "eligible" voters. For instance, a representative may make decisions regarding education funding, which are decisions that impact children who could not vote because of their age. The decisions made and votes cast by our representatives impact all of the people and not just those who are eligible to vote or who actually voted. That is why political districts should be population based.
6
I've never understood why children and illegal immigrants are entitled to representation. If they are not entitled to vote, who is to vote on their behalf? Giving inordinate weight to the voters in their district is nonsensical.
7
The framers allowed the slave owning states to have their representation in Congress based on the population with slaves counting as 3/5 of a person, and these slaves obviously did not vote. It seems their intentions were very clear in this matter. How ironic that conservatives in Texas are trying to use the courts to engage in the sort of "judicial activism" that they claim to oppose.
4
Why not count a child as three-fifths of a person. It worked so well the last time we tried it.
8
For most of American history Africans were not persons. It took a civil war, Constitutional amendments, reconstruction, Jim Crow and civil rights legislation to make African Americans who were enslaved and discriminated against become persons. But nothing changed the physical identity of an American minority politically historically colored and controlled by the white European American majority. And there is no Hispanic race. Having a Spanish language and cultural heritage has nothing to do with race or color or national origin or any combination of those factors. The primary analog to Hispanic is Anglo. Deciding who is a person has been the American challenge.
4
Well, the Supreme 5 have already demonstrated that they will be the judges of who is a "person" and who is not. (BTW, it'll be the "person" with the money.)
4
Ordinarily this type of nonsense would never reach the Supreme Court. The fact that this case was accepted for argument is both a travesty and a frightening omen.
The Supreme Court majority of republican appointees has ignored any Constitutional restraints in declaring corporations to have access to the Bill of Rights. To declare wealth the equal of free speech , thereby selling this country down the river to the highest bidder. To deprive litigants of class action law suits and rendering corporations judgment free from their greed.
To ignore the racism that has torn this country apart in recent years , thereby allowing every red state to bar minorities and students from voting.
This case , with the usual 5-4 results , will hand the republicans the keys to the voting booth and turn that process into the one party concession stand that the Court has struggled to achieve under a Chief Justice and four GOP minions that have held our Supreme Court in thrall to the neo-conservative fervor that has resulted in a presidential nominating process that may well pit Donald Trump , the epitome of wealth , arrogance , and his fascistic fantasies against the populist, Bernie Sanders , who represents about 95 % of a populace that has been fully exploited by that miniscule sliver of citizens , maybe 400 strong , that can afford to purchase their politicians , their government , and a Supreme Court that kowtows to the fancies of the super rich.
The Supreme Court majority of republican appointees has ignored any Constitutional restraints in declaring corporations to have access to the Bill of Rights. To declare wealth the equal of free speech , thereby selling this country down the river to the highest bidder. To deprive litigants of class action law suits and rendering corporations judgment free from their greed.
To ignore the racism that has torn this country apart in recent years , thereby allowing every red state to bar minorities and students from voting.
This case , with the usual 5-4 results , will hand the republicans the keys to the voting booth and turn that process into the one party concession stand that the Court has struggled to achieve under a Chief Justice and four GOP minions that have held our Supreme Court in thrall to the neo-conservative fervor that has resulted in a presidential nominating process that may well pit Donald Trump , the epitome of wealth , arrogance , and his fascistic fantasies against the populist, Bernie Sanders , who represents about 95 % of a populace that has been fully exploited by that miniscule sliver of citizens , maybe 400 strong , that can afford to purchase their politicians , their government , and a Supreme Court that kowtows to the fancies of the super rich.
5
Population should only be used to allocate state and federal funds. Voting districts are just that; to count eligible voters; 18 yr old citizens without a felony conviction.
Illegal aliens should only be counted in population because they do get taxpayer benefits but presumably are not allowed to vote. The children they give birth to while here are eligible to vote when they turn 18.
Separating population from voters is in keeping with existing laws regarding social service funding requirements and citizenship. Stop trying to bend the law to pander to those actively, unapologetically breaking it.
Illegal aliens should only be counted in population because they do get taxpayer benefits but presumably are not allowed to vote. The children they give birth to while here are eligible to vote when they turn 18.
Separating population from voters is in keeping with existing laws regarding social service funding requirements and citizenship. Stop trying to bend the law to pander to those actively, unapologetically breaking it.
3
Ordinarily we would not have to be concerned about such nonsense. With a crew featuring Alito , Scalia , Thomas , Roberts...and often Kennedy, that no longer holds true. All are republican appointments and all have endorsed such remarkable positions on corporate personhood , wealth as free speech , allowed the religious beliefs of certain corporations to dictate health care choices , and their perceived absence of racism in a country that is racist to the core.
How these decisions were made is an enigma as they certainly have absolutely no relationship to anything written in our Constitution.
There is no reason not to believe that a Supreme Court majority that has already sold this country down the river to the highest bidder , will hesitate to concoct some smoke and mirrors legal conclusion that will turn the voting booth into a one party concession stand.
Sanders v. Trump , the arrogant, clueless billionaire that has mesmerized his audiences with fascistic fantasies , against the populist who represents the real interests of about 90 % of the American Commonwealth.
It is astounding that , given these numbers , such a race may indeed be in the offing. It is more astounding that a tiny sliver of the population could , with the Supreme Court's blessing , purchase the election of a clown like Trump , put him in charge of the mightiest army on earth , and turn him loose on the planet.
How these decisions were made is an enigma as they certainly have absolutely no relationship to anything written in our Constitution.
There is no reason not to believe that a Supreme Court majority that has already sold this country down the river to the highest bidder , will hesitate to concoct some smoke and mirrors legal conclusion that will turn the voting booth into a one party concession stand.
Sanders v. Trump , the arrogant, clueless billionaire that has mesmerized his audiences with fascistic fantasies , against the populist who represents the real interests of about 90 % of the American Commonwealth.
It is astounding that , given these numbers , such a race may indeed be in the offing. It is more astounding that a tiny sliver of the population could , with the Supreme Court's blessing , purchase the election of a clown like Trump , put him in charge of the mightiest army on earth , and turn him loose on the planet.
3
I am of the view that an elected official is supposed to represent all of the people in his district whether they voted for him/her or not. That includes those who voted against him, those who are ineligible to vote as well as those who failed to vote. Those who are ineligible include children - who are subject to a host of laws and regulations as to which they have never had any input, including paying income and other taxes. Talk about taxation without representation.
4
As a Dem I welcome demographic trends that favor Democrats. However, since voting is reserved for citizens 18 , I don't see how district apportionment at a state or federal level includes non citizen populations in the first place.
No doubt the GOP is using every dirty trick possible to disenfranchise likely Democrat voters, so perhaps Dems need to stoop to the same Machiavellian level simply to keep up. And no doubt next up for the GOP would be invalidating birthright citizenship. But I don't see the rationale for direct representation of non citizens in the US or US State Governments.
No doubt the GOP is using every dirty trick possible to disenfranchise likely Democrat voters, so perhaps Dems need to stoop to the same Machiavellian level simply to keep up. And no doubt next up for the GOP would be invalidating birthright citizenship. But I don't see the rationale for direct representation of non citizens in the US or US State Governments.
1
People are not required to vote, but does that mean they don't get representation? Of course not. This is a silly law suit and should never have been accepted by the SCOTUS.
4
As a practical matter, Curious, how does a representative know what his people want if they don't vote? In a democracy, people provide direction to their representative by voting. In the old adage, if you didn't vote, you forfeited your right to complain about the direction of government.
We need to do whatever is necessary to establish voting rights for all citizens.
If you can join the Army, pay taxes and all the rest you should be able to vote without jumping through hoops or being subject to a list of state imposed nonsense. If you have been convicted of a felony, but have served your sentence and returned to society your voting rights should be restored.
Enough of this. It should not be hard to practice basic democracy.
If you can join the Army, pay taxes and all the rest you should be able to vote without jumping through hoops or being subject to a list of state imposed nonsense. If you have been convicted of a felony, but have served your sentence and returned to society your voting rights should be restored.
Enough of this. It should not be hard to practice basic democracy.
3
Where there's the will to suppress "undesirable" votes, every way producible in the human imagination will be identified and attempted. The 2013 Supreme Court decision gutting Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was premised on the fiction that the Act was written for a different, more racist era and was therefore now rendered moot.
Moot? Not so much. Within what seemed like hours after the Supreme Court's decision states, mainly in the South, fell all over themselves in a race to the bottom of the septic tank of voter suppression and restriction. What this teaches us is that Jim Crow is alive and well, and not only in the South.
Any doubt about this should be assuaged by the highly-supported presidential candidacy of Donald Trump, the most transparently bigoted of the cavalcade remaining in the GOP race to the White House.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Moot? Not so much. Within what seemed like hours after the Supreme Court's decision states, mainly in the South, fell all over themselves in a race to the bottom of the septic tank of voter suppression and restriction. What this teaches us is that Jim Crow is alive and well, and not only in the South.
Any doubt about this should be assuaged by the highly-supported presidential candidacy of Donald Trump, the most transparently bigoted of the cavalcade remaining in the GOP race to the White House.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
9
The article, "Millions of Voter Records Posted, and Some Fear Hacker Field Day", indicates that those citizens prevented from voting may, indeed, be the lucky ones.
Very sadly -- as voting is the touchstone of a democracy -- one has to say, "Be careful what you wish for; you may get it."
Very sadly -- as voting is the touchstone of a democracy -- one has to say, "Be careful what you wish for; you may get it."
2
What really scares me about this case, given the recent decisions by the court, is that Hobby Lobby, et al, will now have the right to vote!!
2
When the founding fathers agreed to count slaves as 3/5 of a person for determining representation in Congress, they made it clear that citizenship and the associated right to vote was not essential for determining proportional representation. As concepts of enfranchisement have expanded over two centuries to become more inclusive, so should the census for representation.
Small states are already over-represented. As the US is more and more tightly enmeshed in global security, economy, and politics, we cannot allow small, isolated, rural parts of our country dictate policy.
Small states are already over-represented. As the US is more and more tightly enmeshed in global security, economy, and politics, we cannot allow small, isolated, rural parts of our country dictate policy.
16
Several thoughts come to mind:
1) The history of voting rights through the 20th century has been to be more inclusive in the name of fairness and giving everyone a stake in the political system. If we reverse direction and begin to exclude populations is the fundamental message that civic access is only for the select, ultimately property-owning white males?
2) If the system is structured to exclude me I no longer have a stake in it. If I no longer have a stake in it should I care whether it succeeds? Indeed if I perceive myself as deliberately excluded do I have an active reason to contribute to its downfall?
3) What happens if politics moves in one direction and demographics in another? What are the implications of a majority-minority state where the largest of the minorities, presumably the white population, seeks to assure itself a permanent status as politically-dominant in relation to the rest of the population? How do we avoid starting to slide toward the use of police to enforce discriminatory status?
4) In the end maintenance of the civic order depends on all of us voluntarily obeying the rules established to guide society. But if a significant segment of the population perceives the rules as established to secure inequality and protect privilege there is a danger the rules will lose their legitimacy. Frankly in a nation awash with guns it takes just one person to decide Ed Blum or William Consovoy represents a threat and we move to a very dangerous situation.
1) The history of voting rights through the 20th century has been to be more inclusive in the name of fairness and giving everyone a stake in the political system. If we reverse direction and begin to exclude populations is the fundamental message that civic access is only for the select, ultimately property-owning white males?
2) If the system is structured to exclude me I no longer have a stake in it. If I no longer have a stake in it should I care whether it succeeds? Indeed if I perceive myself as deliberately excluded do I have an active reason to contribute to its downfall?
3) What happens if politics moves in one direction and demographics in another? What are the implications of a majority-minority state where the largest of the minorities, presumably the white population, seeks to assure itself a permanent status as politically-dominant in relation to the rest of the population? How do we avoid starting to slide toward the use of police to enforce discriminatory status?
4) In the end maintenance of the civic order depends on all of us voluntarily obeying the rules established to guide society. But if a significant segment of the population perceives the rules as established to secure inequality and protect privilege there is a danger the rules will lose their legitimacy. Frankly in a nation awash with guns it takes just one person to decide Ed Blum or William Consovoy represents a threat and we move to a very dangerous situation.
12
2.) Minors and felons are still taxed with sales and income taxes. Even if they cannot vote, they deserve representation. Go ahead, tell that child the Congressman in her district doesn't represent her.
3.) I'd say that a move so nakedly partisan in motivation ought to be struck down on grounds of moral revulsion, but I suppose that is not a persuasive argument in modern politics.