Follow the money. Project on Fair Representation is exclusively funded by Donors Trust. The Koch brothers have donated $5.2 million to Donors Trust since 2005. Therefor, the plaintiffs here are working for the Koch brothers...so this means what they want is a bad idea for our democracy and is only good for the corptocrocy. This lawsuit is just another brick in their wall, just another step of a very intense plan to return the USA to the Gilded Age.
2
The problem is in a way manufactured by the laziness of Congress. Not the senate, because the Senate District is the state lines.
In 1911, Congress was too busy dealing with the bolting of half the republican party into the Bull Moose Party. So they didn't change the number of Representatives.
In 1921, they were too busy dealing with post WWI and the problems that came up because they decide to implement prohibition despite it being unpopular.
In 1929, Congress looked ahead and knew they would be too busy with the Depression so just set the limits with some flexibility to new states, figuring they would get to it in 1941.
Except, of course we had WWII then and ... can got kicked down the road.
Now in 1911 we had 1/3 of the population we do now. Every 200,000 people had a representative.
If we had the appropriate1400 or so congressmen :
* All districts would be smaller, and thus less likely to be "gerrymandered"
* Districts would tend to be more clustered to adhere to constituents views.
* The number of "moderate" Republicans and "moderate" Democrats would sky rocket. To the point that the Tea party AND the Progressives would be marginalized.
Urban centers would tend to be beneficiaries, as San Francisco would get 3-4 Congressmen instead of one.
But Rural districts would not be parceled up and chopped apart to deny them THEIR voice either.
Easy solution. Congress does their job like they did for over 100 years. Representation back to 1 for 200,000
In 1911, Congress was too busy dealing with the bolting of half the republican party into the Bull Moose Party. So they didn't change the number of Representatives.
In 1921, they were too busy dealing with post WWI and the problems that came up because they decide to implement prohibition despite it being unpopular.
In 1929, Congress looked ahead and knew they would be too busy with the Depression so just set the limits with some flexibility to new states, figuring they would get to it in 1941.
Except, of course we had WWII then and ... can got kicked down the road.
Now in 1911 we had 1/3 of the population we do now. Every 200,000 people had a representative.
If we had the appropriate1400 or so congressmen :
* All districts would be smaller, and thus less likely to be "gerrymandered"
* Districts would tend to be more clustered to adhere to constituents views.
* The number of "moderate" Republicans and "moderate" Democrats would sky rocket. To the point that the Tea party AND the Progressives would be marginalized.
Urban centers would tend to be beneficiaries, as San Francisco would get 3-4 Congressmen instead of one.
But Rural districts would not be parceled up and chopped apart to deny them THEIR voice either.
Easy solution. Congress does their job like they did for over 100 years. Representation back to 1 for 200,000
2
We have a representative form of government. Is a congressman only representing the voters who voted form him? Of course not. Is he only representing the interests of the voters in his congressional district but not his children? Of course not. Then how can apportionment not be based on total population rather than a count of eligible voters?
My brother is mentally ill. His mental illness had resulted, all his life, in his making poor and sometimes disastrous decisions. I am appalled that his vote counts the same as mine. Why should it?
Women were counted before they could vote and even slaves were counted (3/5s) so the Constitutional ground is clear--everyone, not just voters must be counted. Of course this wouldn't be the 1st time a partisan Supreme Court majority played politics to advantage the Republican party.
1
Amazing attempts from the right wing to lay a plan whereby they win. The thugs of both parties who work for Wall Street, the Big Banks, or as Lobbyists after they leave the Congress, are setting new and scandalous standards by which our Courts seem to base decisions. The very twisted Citizens United ruling is a standout, reflecting the mindset of several of these justices, and in my opinion, clearly makes them unfit for duty on the Court. So just what are the chances of Justices like Scalia or Alito actually "considering" really constitutionally based arguments? In my opinion, and based upon past rulings in favor of any right wing idea put before them, there is NOT even a chance of that. Our nation needs to revisit the rules. Supreme Court Justices - maybe only a 12 year term, rather than a lifetime of bad decisions. I've had enough of these rulings which seem very unconstitutional. These so-called justices have not made it easier for voters to be counted, for voters to get out and vote, for voters to behave like they have a stake in this nation's outcomes. These Justices have done quite literally everything they could to DENY Voters' rights, in my opinion. If there was any real justice, the right wing of this particular court would be in prison for life for the rulings they've made thus far, for the damage to any threads of democracy we had left.
Apart from all the other objections this would be an administrative nightmare. Restrictive registration procedures are already creating an administrative nightmare. Are 899,00 county clerks across the country going to submit their numbers before every federal election (or every 10 years for that matter?) so that representatives can be reapportioned on the fly to reflect the numbers? Repubs should be careful what they wish for as this could lead to a massive grass roots registration effort that would likely be far more beneficial to Dems than to Repubs.
not so difficult with a national identity card. R's want one for voting, D's want one for gun ownership. make a compromise and use a national ID card to eliminate (the possibility) of voter fraud, and register the serial # for every single firearm in America. it's a significant capital expense but once established would pay dividends for centuries. big data can handle it.
It is clear from article 2 and amendment 14 of the constitution that "all persons" should be counted not just "eligible voters". If the court decides otherwise it will be further evidence that the conservative members interpreting the clear wording of the constitution in a way that changes the meaning to benefit their ideology.
1
Each vote should count equally. Stacking the deck with folks who can't vote or are here illegally is disenfranchising the voting rights/power of everyone else. Simple.
Would appreciate some substantive reporting on the arguments made. The Constitution is unequivocally clear that, at least for the drawing of Congressional districts, the number of "persons" is to be used. And, keep in mind, this was written when women did not have the right to vote, so there's no possible basis for now interpreting "persons" as "persons eligible to vote."
2
So District 1 has 1,000 inhabitants and 10 eligible voters and District 2 has 100,000 inhabitants and 10 eligible voters. Does anyone seriously believe that they should have the same legislative representation? That's what this is about and it's amazing that something so obvious could get to the Supremes.
1
The whole reason that the Supreme Court mandated equally populated districts was its presumption that this would lead to more or less equal numbers of voters in each district. This is, in most cases, still a valid presumption. But given that voter equality is protected by the 14th Amendment, the challengers should still be able to bring a case challenging that presumption, and bear the burden of demonstrating an Equal Protection violation in cases where the presumption does not hold.
How would this affect college students, who are not permanent residents of a district, but are eligible to vote and might prefer to vote in the district of their colleges? I am now a senior at Duke University, where the bulk of the student body comes from outside of North Carolina. Students live in Durham for a clear majority of the year, but cannot vote on bills or government officials that could very well impact the students' lives. Our NC legislature has now made it illegal for students to vote on campus (though, three years ago, it was perfectly fine), and has split our campus into three districts, making students re-register and change voting precincts every time they move dorms. Many of these precincts are far to get to, and as most students do not have cars on campus, students cannot vote. These students, who for the most part vote Democrat, should have a voice, but because these conditions make it almost impossible for students to easily vote, their voices are silenced as our state legislature becomes more and more conservative. How is this fair or appropriate? Preventing students from voting, just because they vote differently from the majority of a region, is unethical and an insult to our democratic process. So, Mr. Hogan, what do we do?
1
Perhaps the case can be viewed in a reducto ad absurdum thought experiment: imagine a US state with so many new immigrants or political refugees that they constitute a majority. Should their presence determine the outcome of elections for US citizens?
1
Sorry but the idea of dilution of votes ,as stated by the appellants, is absurd. That should not be the argument at all. The Constitution states all people have the right to vote. It does not say they have to vote. What the appellants are saying is they are judging themselves "better" than those who do not vote ,so therefore they deserve more consideration. But those who do not vote have that right. If the Supreme Court says that states have the right not to count non-voters would be discounting their potential. This doesn't sound like the America that was laid out in the Constitution,no matter what Scalia & Thomas believe. This psychotic behavior of trying to disenfranchise people has got to stop. So much emphasis on ideologies and so little on progress. When you begin to relegate people as being less worthy than others or label huge swaths of the population as negatable,you are going to create an environment that is destructive. Why are so many people trying to be so exclusive? Whatever happened to all men are created equal in the eyes of God? Such a self righteous waste of time.
1
Why must Republicans and conservatives always seek to change the rules? Oh. That's right. It's because they can't win if they play by the rules.
1
We the registered voters...
So, now the Tea Party Republicans are for taxation without representation?
So, now the Tea Party Republicans are for taxation without representation?
2
"One person one vote" is a laughable concept even before this particular issue is decided by the Supreme Court. A quick look at state populations indicates that Senators from the least populous 23 states, whose total population roughly equals that of California, can outvote the two California Senators 46 to 2. Is that one person one vote? And how is it that Democrats often have considerably more votes than Republicans country-wide in Congressional elections (especially in presidential election years) yet Republicans have a stranglehold on the House for the foreseeable future? It makes me despair for our Democracy.
2
I wonder about the concept "elegible voters". Does it mean meeting a state's criteria for registraron or does it mean actually registered to vote? Presumably if I a formal elegible but not registered I cannot vote. It would seem districts or states struggling to exclude people from voting rolls should not be able to count them for purposes of determining the allocation of representativas. Furthermore it woukld seem to suggest a sigle national standard for voter eligibility. Presumably the status of citizen at age 18 would be the principal determinant. In effect states could lose much of their control over voter registraron, and one wonders whether states so eager to purgue voting rolls would be pleased to see such power disappear. Permitting states to keep such power would in fact provide incentivos to shrink the pool of elegible votes even further to assure continued control of politics. in the hands of a specific population.
From the nation's founding until relatively recently one of our dominant valúes has been the expansión of the franchise in the interest of creating a broader sense of a stake in the political system. While Evenwel vs. Abbott would not be the first effort to reverse that pattern it would be a powerful statement supporting the creation of more durable boundaries of exclusión. Could the American system survive división into a nation of citizens and serfs, with a segment of the population excluded, rebellious, and a permanent threat to the privileged?
From the nation's founding until relatively recently one of our dominant valúes has been the expansión of the franchise in the interest of creating a broader sense of a stake in the political system. While Evenwel vs. Abbott would not be the first effort to reverse that pattern it would be a powerful statement supporting the creation of more durable boundaries of exclusión. Could the American system survive división into a nation of citizens and serfs, with a segment of the population excluded, rebellious, and a permanent threat to the privileged?
1
One person - one vote...Electoral college should be abolished?
What a load of horse manure. If the SCt can't see through this right wing attack on voting rights, they're really just a bunch of ideologues who don't deserve to be in these vital and important positions.
My point being, if they think that only the voters should be represented, then that would create more legislators in each district because there would be a need for democratic voters to be represented and republican voters to be represented. That is if you think only voters should be counted. Otherwise, elected officials will only be required to consoider the opinions of those who "voted" for them. And to hell with those voters casting votes against the elected officials. Elected officials must represent those who vote for or against them, regardless. Similarly, they must represent those who chose not to vote. If not, voting should be made mandatory just like having identification to prove who you are.
My point being, if they think that only the voters should be represented, then that would create more legislators in each district because there would be a need for democratic voters to be represented and republican voters to be represented. That is if you think only voters should be counted. Otherwise, elected officials will only be required to consoider the opinions of those who "voted" for them. And to hell with those voters casting votes against the elected officials. Elected officials must represent those who vote for or against them, regardless. Similarly, they must represent those who chose not to vote. If not, voting should be made mandatory just like having identification to prove who you are.
1
This insane case should have never made it to the Supreme Court! Talk about pandering to the Rightwingers.
1
Any/all efforts by US citizens to influence government at any/all levels in the US should be exclusively on the basis of 'one person one vote.' Any/all lobbying beyond 'one person one vote' should be banned. Gerrymandering should be banned. Both Congress and The Supreme Court should be subject to term limits.
Alaska has a population of 726,732. Pinellas county Florida (where I live) has a population of 929,048. Alaska has a representative in the House and two senators. We residents of Pinellas county Florida have to share two senators with the other 18 million people living in Florida. Before people get on two high a horse about 'one man, one vote' we should consider the fact that our constitution is rigged the other way.
2
As to the alleged difficulties in counting eligible voters, just use the voter registration lists. Anyone not on that list is not an eligible voter by definition.
1
I'm interested in how mr. scalia , the "constitutionalist" rules.
he so often finds a way to reject the constitution when he wants the ruling
to go the other way.
he so often finds a way to reject the constitution when he wants the ruling
to go the other way.
4
"immigrants here legally who are not citizens, unauthorized immigrants" should not be counted for purpose of representation. And I would hope the Supreme Court decides for Ms. Evenwel and Mr. Pfenninger. Only citizens have the right to vote - although I'd that Democrats would wholeheartedly support lifting the voting restriction against immigrant non-citizens.
And while citizen children may not have reached the legal minimum age for voting they remain citizens and should be counted for representation. Immigrants and illegal immigrants in particular distort our democracy when counted for representation purposes. There is too much of fundamental legislative and elective allocation by representation to count people who will never be allowed to vote while in a non-citizen capacity. It's corruption of the democratic process and the value of being an American.
And while citizen children may not have reached the legal minimum age for voting they remain citizens and should be counted for representation. Immigrants and illegal immigrants in particular distort our democracy when counted for representation purposes. There is too much of fundamental legislative and elective allocation by representation to count people who will never be allowed to vote while in a non-citizen capacity. It's corruption of the democratic process and the value of being an American.
The Chief Justice's decision will likely favor republicans. He has a record favoring them on Citizens United, the Voting Rights Act, and his work as an attorney, prior to being appointed chief justice by the G.W. Bush administration, on Bush v. Gore.
1
Perhaps a good compromise would be to count all registered voters, PLUS all residents. That way voters would be counted twice, but nonvoters would also be counted.
But why should voters be counted more than nonvoters?
Because the voters are citizens?
But why should voters be counted more than nonvoters?
Because the voters are citizens?
As Republican voters have become “one-issue”voters (anti-abortion, anti-gun regulation, anti-regulation--except for “lady parts, anti-immigration; it becomes more important than ever that after the Democratic primary that EVERY progressive voter get out and back then VOTE for the Democratic candidate in November of 2016.
It is absolutely imperative that future SCOTUS justices and other federally appointed judges be chosen by Democratic presidents. Two-thirds of our government depends on this: Executive Branch and Judicial Branch.
It is absolutely imperative that future SCOTUS justices and other federally appointed judges be chosen by Democratic presidents. Two-thirds of our government depends on this: Executive Branch and Judicial Branch.
6
As this is the infamous U. S. Supreme Court which ruled that corporations are people, does that mean that they'll let the corporations count and vote too?
5
The idea that only registered voters or those eligible to vote count in terms of districts is a fundamental contradiction of the representative system. One of the things the founders fought against was the idea that a representative didn't represent the people of his/her district, but rather, 'the entire people'. We have requirements a representative live in the district they represent, for example, to make sure that their interests and that of the people they represent were in line. A representative represents all the people who live in their district, unlike in Britain where MP's can live outside the district they represent, and the fundamental battle of the US revolution was the colonists had no direct representation and were told "Parliament represents the whole".
If we start counting only eligible voters, then we break that bond, we are saying only voters count. If the US government is by the people, for the people and of the people, then voters cannot be allowed to represent 'the people'.
As far as one person one vote goes, that principle is broken by the constitution. In a state with 20 million people, they have 2 senators (1 senator/10 million), in a state with 500,000, it is 250,000/senator). If we broke one person, one vote with the Senate, then using that as justification for the house apportionment is ridiculous.
If we start counting only eligible voters, then we break that bond, we are saying only voters count. If the US government is by the people, for the people and of the people, then voters cannot be allowed to represent 'the people'.
As far as one person one vote goes, that principle is broken by the constitution. In a state with 20 million people, they have 2 senators (1 senator/10 million), in a state with 500,000, it is 250,000/senator). If we broke one person, one vote with the Senate, then using that as justification for the house apportionment is ridiculous.
The real question that needs to be litigated is why do less populated states get more Presidential electoral college votes than populated states. The electoral college is NOT "one vote, one person." Since all states automatically get +2 electoral college votes from Senators, it skews the votes of Americans in populated states as less weight in Presidential elections. The end result is that Americans in large states are disenfranchised in Presidential elections.
Presidential elections should simply be based on a nationwide vote. Whoever gets 50.1% of the nationwide votes, wins.
Presidential elections should simply be based on a nationwide vote. Whoever gets 50.1% of the nationwide votes, wins.
1
The impact that undocumented immigrants have on political platforms in particular creates an unbalanced bias for parties to direct their immigration policies in return for house seats. This leads to our representatives looking out for undocumented workers who have not taken an oath to the United States of America (which is by no means wrong) more before its own citizens.
This is the follow on to Citizens United. Change the count from all people to registered voters, and follow up with well funded voter registration drives (and bad registration laws if you can get away with it). Voila, a new, nicely biased voter base, and newly geographically disbursed numbers to gerrymander by. The Koch brothers must be salivating at this one.
It is the Democrats who are behind most of the voter registration drives, and they take place disproportionately in the inner city. So, if this is a follow up to Citizens United, it is a singularly ineffective one.
1
I am very very disturbed at what seems to be a concerted effort by certain Republican affiliated groups to win elections and influence, not by changing voters minds, but by manipulating the system. In the last Congressional election the Republicans gained a huge majority of the House seats while only getting a minority of votes. If one considers the fact that fewer Democratic registered voters show up at the poles the influence of Republicans is even more out of whack with the will of the people.
It may seem like a victory when these tactics work but in the long run disenfranchising Americans only serves to create a feeling of anger against the government.
It may seem like a victory when these tactics work but in the long run disenfranchising Americans only serves to create a feeling of anger against the government.
2
Before the justices throw our entire electoral apportionment out of whack I would like to know what data states would use to decided how to allocate electoral districts that take into account all US citizens eligible to vote. What would the costs be to states and how would citizens ensure their voting power was not diluted especially in this era of voter ID laws and even voter registration laws that require voters to provide proof of citizenship. Leaving this up to the individual states would likely open the door to all kinds of mischief by the political parties dominating a particular state.
2
It seems to me it would make sense to have districts based on ALL residents.
Why? Because some of those who aren't 18 WILL become 18 and register to vote. Immigrants who are trying to become naturalized WILL become naturalized and register to vote.
The Constitution requires redrawing districts every 10 years on the federal level. Most state and local governments follow that same pattern. Imagine how many people will have entered the pool of those qualified to register to vote during that decade. Without taking those people into consideration, it seems like things could get way out of whack in just a few years.
I realize no system of counting is perfect and demographics will change in the course of a decade -- people will die off, or they'll move out of districts, etc.
But counting total number of residents and not just those who are eligible to vote would take away at least one potential distorting factor.
Why? Because some of those who aren't 18 WILL become 18 and register to vote. Immigrants who are trying to become naturalized WILL become naturalized and register to vote.
The Constitution requires redrawing districts every 10 years on the federal level. Most state and local governments follow that same pattern. Imagine how many people will have entered the pool of those qualified to register to vote during that decade. Without taking those people into consideration, it seems like things could get way out of whack in just a few years.
I realize no system of counting is perfect and demographics will change in the course of a decade -- people will die off, or they'll move out of districts, etc.
But counting total number of residents and not just those who are eligible to vote would take away at least one potential distorting factor.
2
If the plaintiffs prevail and other schemes put in place to maximize votes and representation for one party, we will have an even less representative government than we do now, with the gerrymandered House and the unequal Senate. Last year I was the Democratic nominee for Wyoming's congressional seat (because no Democrat who lived in the state wanted to run in the primary against me). Wyoming's two U.S. senators represent 584,000 people; California's two U.S. senators represent more than 38,800,000 people. The U.S. House seat I ran for represents those same 584,000 people, but the average U.S. House district has 710,767 people within its borders. And of course that's without any multidistrict gerrymandering.
Eventually there will be some kind of reaction, just as there will be if we see enactment of current hateful proposals to bar Muslims from entering this country, to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants and even their American-born citizen children, to increase the already corrosive income inequality between the very rich and the rest of us.
As Ralph Waldo Emerson and others have noted, there will always be a reaction to unfairness: "Though no checks to a new evil appear, the checks exist, and will appear. If the government is cruel, the governor's life is not safe. If you tax too high, the revenue will yield nothing. If you make the criminal code sanguinary, juries will not convict. If the law is too mild, private vengeance comes in."
This reaction will be ugly.
Eventually there will be some kind of reaction, just as there will be if we see enactment of current hateful proposals to bar Muslims from entering this country, to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants and even their American-born citizen children, to increase the already corrosive income inequality between the very rich and the rest of us.
As Ralph Waldo Emerson and others have noted, there will always be a reaction to unfairness: "Though no checks to a new evil appear, the checks exist, and will appear. If the government is cruel, the governor's life is not safe. If you tax too high, the revenue will yield nothing. If you make the criminal code sanguinary, juries will not convict. If the law is too mild, private vengeance comes in."
This reaction will be ugly.
As much sense as it makes to only count citizens to determine how the citizenry is represented, it would take a connection of dots in the 14th amendment that the Court has never previously made, and would clearly open the door to an argument on birthright citizenship of the children of illegal aliens for which I suspect the Court has no appetite.
They could actually get us one person one vote if they took off the cap on the house of representatives. Give Wyoming one rep (or heck, give them 10) and then give states that have people in them equivalent representation. If Wyo pop was 550k in 2010, give every other state a rep for each 550k citizens (or give Wyo 10 and each other state 10 per 550k).
The underlying issue is the vetting of those registering to vote. The urban cities do not vet their voting registration rolls adequately thereby allowing many unqualified folks from illegal immigrants to dead people to vote. It is just another voting mess thrust upon the nation by the liberal establishment.
Vote NO democrats in 2016
Vote NO democrats in 2016
2
Aside from this being a pretty obvious power grab by Republicans, it's also an unnecessary debate and one that wouldn't exist in most other democracies. We are one of the few countries that still uses single member districts with a first past the post system. In most European countries, you simply vote for the party you prefer and that party gets the same percentage of seats as votes it won, eliminating the possibility of gerrymandering as well as any of these fights over who gets counted. Even moving to multi-member districts with some kind of proportional representation would preserve the connection of local representatives to their districts while ensuring the legislature accurately reflected the range of views of the people.
1
It may be *called* one person, one vote, Mr Chief Justice, but that has no legal meaning whatsoever.
And their lawyer' simple proposition - "One person can't be given two votes while their neighbor is given one vote." How many logical fallacies can be put in one sentence? Such absolute nonsense.
Every day there is some new outrage being perpetrated on the American people and constitution by the right wing. Their creativity for harm is limitless. So now we're going back in the direction of only the landed gentry having the right to vote. That disenfranchises many millions of people - citizens, not in the classic sense but with regard to legitimacy in the political process, as Justice Kagan says.
I don't think this is going to turn out well.
And their lawyer' simple proposition - "One person can't be given two votes while their neighbor is given one vote." How many logical fallacies can be put in one sentence? Such absolute nonsense.
Every day there is some new outrage being perpetrated on the American people and constitution by the right wing. Their creativity for harm is limitless. So now we're going back in the direction of only the landed gentry having the right to vote. That disenfranchises many millions of people - citizens, not in the classic sense but with regard to legitimacy in the political process, as Justice Kagan says.
I don't think this is going to turn out well.
1
Have we come a long way from our origins as a country where only propertied white males could vote? When we look at the oligarchy that runs this country we see exactly that: white, propertied, males. Of course you have to super rich nowadays. We claim we are a democracy but rule by the rich is a truer description.
1
There is something terribly ironic about this. In the original US Constitution "other persons" (meaning slaves) were counted as 3/5 of a person. Which meant that slaveholders essentially got a disproportionate share of representation.
(And, on the other end, "untaxed Indians" were not counted at all.)
Oh, and, of course, the residents of Washington, D.C. (mostly black, mostly Democratic) still have NO voting representation in Congress at all--- how's that for taxation without representation.
(And, on the other end, "untaxed Indians" were not counted at all.)
Oh, and, of course, the residents of Washington, D.C. (mostly black, mostly Democratic) still have NO voting representation in Congress at all--- how's that for taxation without representation.
2
No wonder why Democrats love illegal immigration .
The "one person one vote" doctrine means that each voter should get the same voting power . Augmenting the voter power of some voters by means of illegal population is simply not fair and that represents a violation of the equal protection .
It doesn't even makes sense to state that your vote is less important just because you don't have children .
The "one person one vote" doctrine means that each voter should get the same voting power . Augmenting the voter power of some voters by means of illegal population is simply not fair and that represents a violation of the equal protection .
It doesn't even makes sense to state that your vote is less important just because you don't have children .
So, if the plaintiffs win their case, sparsely populated areas with large percentages of elderly native born residents could theoretically elect more representatives than more populous areas with large numbers of immigrants and children. The conservatives may want to think this through carefully though, this could wind up turning around and biting them. The infamous 3/5 rule, which counted slaves as 3/5 of a person may have wound up helping the rest of the country by diluting the power of the southern slave states. If the (non-voting, of course) slaves had been counted as whole persons, the south would have been even more powerful at the national level than it was.
1
What about "children" who are 17 at the time of the census? Is it right to disenfranchise them for 9 years until there is another census?
1
Four of the judges will say one person, one vote. Four will say one dollar, one vote. Kennedy will split the difference.
2
This question of whether to count just voters or all residents in drawing congressional districts was decided in the original constitution when 2/3 of slaves were counted, even though they could not vote.
2
Wasn't it 3/5?
1
I find the moniker "one person, one vote" hard to follow. Surely, each person eligible to vote is permitted only one vote, so this term cannot mean that there is a question whether a person should have more than one vote. A clearer expression might be--what does representative voting mean in the context of allocating the number of seats in the House of Representatives? In a Senate election, votes are counted on a state-wide basis, and each eligible voter gets the same voting power. For Presidential elections, because of the electoral college, this issue means much more, since it apportions the vote of each individual by state of residence whose voting power is based on the sum of its congressional seats. House seats are assigned based on the census, which requires an "actual enumeration" of persons resident in a state. It cannot be right only to count eligible voters, since the US Constitution specifically says otherwise. But it also can't be right to include undocumented aliens, since they technically aren't supposed to be "resident" in the US in the first place. Yet, the children of undocumented aliens are US citizens, so they would in fact be counted. One way to make this issue matter less is to amend the Constitution to remove the electoral college and make the election of the President a direct election. As for House seats, the better answer is find a comprehensive solution to the immigration issue, and that problem, too, becomes far less acute.
The justices must be confused. They already decided that every dollar has an equal vote. Since when did people count?
4
Princess Evenwel is even more beautiful than Princess Arwen Undomiel of Mirkwood.
Whatever the sophistries of the argument in this case, don't we all know that this is part of repeated Republican attempts to disenfranchise voters?
4
It is a wonder the GOP hasn't tried to get something into law like the three fifths compromise. The plantation class has long been coming up with schemes to ensure they are in power.
3
It seems like delegating votes by "person" is very antiquated. We have had the computing power to delegating power more accurately and logically for decades... the IRS mainframe.
Voting power should be allocated base on economic contribution from the last tax period. A person that contributed more for the wellbeing of other should obviously having more say than someone that didn't. A small business owner that hired 10 employees and added millions to his town's economic activity should have far more say than a convict. An illegal immigrant that provide living for 100 American should have the same weight as an American that cares for 100.
There are two arguments for adapting this method: 1. A person that's more successful is more likely to posses the skill sets to be more successful in running a country. 2. A person with more invested in his community and country is more likely to want to see it prosper and stick around when times get tough.
Detracting arguments such as reduced benefits and less welfare are selfish and un-American. Each of us exist to serve this nation and the greater good, not leaching from it. Desiring the rights to vote just for free school lunch, higher SSI benefit and free housing are not what being American is about. Wasn't it Mr Kennedy that said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?
Voting power should be allocated base on economic contribution from the last tax period. A person that contributed more for the wellbeing of other should obviously having more say than someone that didn't. A small business owner that hired 10 employees and added millions to his town's economic activity should have far more say than a convict. An illegal immigrant that provide living for 100 American should have the same weight as an American that cares for 100.
There are two arguments for adapting this method: 1. A person that's more successful is more likely to posses the skill sets to be more successful in running a country. 2. A person with more invested in his community and country is more likely to want to see it prosper and stick around when times get tough.
Detracting arguments such as reduced benefits and less welfare are selfish and un-American. Each of us exist to serve this nation and the greater good, not leaching from it. Desiring the rights to vote just for free school lunch, higher SSI benefit and free housing are not what being American is about. Wasn't it Mr Kennedy that said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?
1
In other words, one dollar, one vote? Don't the rich rule us enough already, after Citizens United? What you are suggesting is that a rich man that pays more taxes should have more voting power than a poor man that pays less taxes. If that is not plutocracy, the term had little to no meaning. With your proosed system, a single billionares vote would trump the votes of millions of working and middle class people. Your main argument for this system is "the rich know best, and they are always looking out for the common good". In the 2008 Financial Crisis, they certainly did not know best, nor were they working for the common good.
1
If the way districts are apportioned now tends to favor urban areas that vote Democratic, why are so many districts Republican strongholds? One would think the field would be slanted Democratic, but with the electorate split about 50/50 during presidential elections, would our elected houses be more 50/50 instead of majority Republican? I'm all for rural votes counting, but enshrining one particular definition of how to assign votes seems extreme.
This would hardly be an issue if we had meaningful control of illegal immigration.
3
Citizen's United already made representation based on who bought you not who voted for you.
2
Just do as Australia does. Fine eligible voters for not voting and put equal numbers of eligible voters in districts.
Equal protection of the law begins with equal input into what the law is, subject to the constitutional limits on the powers of Congress to enact laws.
Equal protection of the law begins with equal input into what the law is, subject to the constitutional limits on the powers of Congress to enact laws.
1
Those who propose compulsory voting should consider how to answer two questions. The first is whether (and why) we should expect a thoughtful and informed vote from someone who is voting only to avoid a fine or other punishment. The second is whether the right to abstain is not pretty near as important as the right, expressed in the Fourth Amendment, to be left alone by the authorities unless there are compelling reasons.
1
It's "We the People" not "we the registered voters."
2
Oh great Scalia is just looking for reasons to give the vote (and congressional representation) to ungulates grazing on BLM land...
4
"They are represented by the Project on Fair Representation, a small conservative advocacy group that has been active in cases concerning race and vote suppression."
Fixed that for ya.
Fixed that for ya.
1
" One Person, One Vote. " What's so confusing about that? And that one person is a citizen of this Country, 18 years of age, in the whole country where there are people eligible to vote. The criteria are quite straightforward. It therefore excludes children, green card holders and illegals. But includes felons and other disenfranchised people because they are citizens and retain their right to vote.
Maybe, I am just naive or just plain ignorant. And since voting is a right afforded us by our Constitution, it is a Federal issue. So why are the States making up their own rules?
Maybe, I am just naive or just plain ignorant. And since voting is a right afforded us by our Constitution, it is a Federal issue. So why are the States making up their own rules?
2
look again at your Constitution, the is no constitutional "right to vote"
Perhaps we should reframe the debate by stating that we should count citizens, and not quibble about whether such things as felony convictions render them ineligible or they are under age. The central tenet should be that all American citizens should be offered representation regardless of age or status. Non-citizens, on the other hand, whether here legally or not, should not be allowed legislative representation. (Note, that they are still free to express their opinions, advocate, support groups that advocate for them. etc. - this does not shut them out of "the system" but simply acknowledges that their status, i.e., non-citizen, does not entitle them to official representation.)
3
If we are to have one person, one vote, does that mean elimination of the electoral college? The rural areas win big on that one.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but the Constitution requires the counting of slaves, albeit as 3/5 of a person. If chattel get counted, all people must be counted.
1
Will places like Florida, where a lot visiting American citizens happen to be on April 1 of a census year, lose representation? Is there any way to determine who among those counted in Florida (or similar states) are not residents and therefore not eligible to vote there?
1
So who will be the next group targeted by these unpatriotic Americans? LGBT folks? Recent naturalized citizens? Renters?
As the pool of eligible Republican voters shrinks, I'm sure they will think up even more ludicrous reasons to determine who is eligible to vote and whether they should be counted as fellow human beings.
As the pool of eligible Republican voters shrinks, I'm sure they will think up even more ludicrous reasons to determine who is eligible to vote and whether they should be counted as fellow human beings.
2
homer, just scroll a few comments up to "amateurhistorian" from NYC for an exact answer to your question - could it be worse? yes. 'amateur' says basically voting should be a type of meritocracy based on how much economic contribution you make to society. (of course, many of us would say that was Citizens United was for.) sometimes i think i must have heard the worst - there couldn't be more cold-hearted or crass or racist or just plain mean people out there...then, sigh, there are. if we think USA is a big old melting pot (debatable, of course) then we all need to be IN the pot together. let's stop sorting people for every blasted thing some one can make up to make us mad at each other.
The Constitution counted slaves that were ineligible to vote so I guess the Republicans are against that document holding sway.
Defining what makes one eligible to vote should take into account you are not eligible to vote if you are not registered.
I guess this means that locales with lots of children will not be counting those under 18 and will have less representation and less money in block grants. It also means that for ten years, until the next census, those locations full of young folks will labor under the lack of representation and lack of money.
Why not go all the way back to only land owners being allowed to vote as well? Of course that means all the Canadian and Chinese landowners will be dis-enfranchised except for having money which is speech which means politicians will listen to them more than those that live in their region.
Defining what makes one eligible to vote should take into account you are not eligible to vote if you are not registered.
I guess this means that locales with lots of children will not be counting those under 18 and will have less representation and less money in block grants. It also means that for ten years, until the next census, those locations full of young folks will labor under the lack of representation and lack of money.
Why not go all the way back to only land owners being allowed to vote as well? Of course that means all the Canadian and Chinese landowners will be dis-enfranchised except for having money which is speech which means politicians will listen to them more than those that live in their region.
This case isn't about illegal immigrants --- It is about your citizen children, and how, if the court finds for the plaintiffs, they won't have any direct representation of their interests in your state legislature.
That right, children, who are compelled by law to attend school, get medical care, etc., would not be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts.
Such a ruling would say that the greatest gift in the world -- citizenship in the United States of America, conferred upon your children by the words of the Constitution of the United States at the moment of their birth -- is junk.
Until, that is, they turn 18, or 21, or 35, or whatever crazy manipulation of the voting laws the statehouse clique feels is best toward preserving their perpetual hold on political power.
That right, children, who are compelled by law to attend school, get medical care, etc., would not be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts.
Such a ruling would say that the greatest gift in the world -- citizenship in the United States of America, conferred upon your children by the words of the Constitution of the United States at the moment of their birth -- is junk.
Until, that is, they turn 18, or 21, or 35, or whatever crazy manipulation of the voting laws the statehouse clique feels is best toward preserving their perpetual hold on political power.
2
From a purely practical standpoint, how do we go about counting - or not counting - prior felons, illegal immigrants, and others ineligible to vote. Do we ask each person to state whether or not s/he is here illegally? committed a felony some time in the past?
1
The solution, should the Court find for the plaintiffs -- an amendment in which any state that fails to provide representation (not voting rights, as so many commentators have gotten wrong here) to all residents shall have their representation in the US and in presidential electors reduced to a number equivalent to the total number of people directly represented in your state.
With such a solution, states who set legislative boundaries merely on the number of voters, would see the number of non voters subtracted from their population counts under the US Census, and would have their number of US House members and presidential electors likewise reduced.
There should be enough support among states that for political reasons, common sense or love of the US Constitution as currently written, to ratify such an amendment.
With such a solution, states who set legislative boundaries merely on the number of voters, would see the number of non voters subtracted from their population counts under the US Census, and would have their number of US House members and presidential electors likewise reduced.
There should be enough support among states that for political reasons, common sense or love of the US Constitution as currently written, to ratify such an amendment.
I've been try to get around one person one vote for years. You see, I come from a vary small rural county that at one time had 7,000 people. Today we have 700. We have a lot of square miles, a lot of watershed, trees, rocks and cattle. But only 700 people.
At one time we used to have our own Senator from Harding County. All Counties had Senators. The bigger counties had more Senators. The state now has 42 Senators and 32 counties.
I wanted each county to have at least one senator.
The Senate is comprised of equal amount single member districts. Each district represents 43,303 persons.
So here in NM one vote equals 43,303 persons. Persons, not square miles not number of trees or cattle.
I've always wanted to be the Senator from Harding County, a bunch of people already call me Governor. I have served six terms as County Assessor, either un-opposed or winning by a huge margin.
I wanted to represent the people of Harding County in the Senate. But Nooo. It is one person, one vote, no way around it.
Our citizens have to share a Senator with 5 counties. (to make up 43,303 persons). That Senator does not represent Harding, he represents pieces of Union, Quay, Roosevelt, Colfax, San Miguel, Mora and Harding, thus in fact not representing any of them singly.
We get represented I guess, but not very well. The votes are not here so the money doesn't come here. One vote one person shifts the power to the big cities, where the votes are. The money follows the voters.
At one time we used to have our own Senator from Harding County. All Counties had Senators. The bigger counties had more Senators. The state now has 42 Senators and 32 counties.
I wanted each county to have at least one senator.
The Senate is comprised of equal amount single member districts. Each district represents 43,303 persons.
So here in NM one vote equals 43,303 persons. Persons, not square miles not number of trees or cattle.
I've always wanted to be the Senator from Harding County, a bunch of people already call me Governor. I have served six terms as County Assessor, either un-opposed or winning by a huge margin.
I wanted to represent the people of Harding County in the Senate. But Nooo. It is one person, one vote, no way around it.
Our citizens have to share a Senator with 5 counties. (to make up 43,303 persons). That Senator does not represent Harding, he represents pieces of Union, Quay, Roosevelt, Colfax, San Miguel, Mora and Harding, thus in fact not representing any of them singly.
We get represented I guess, but not very well. The votes are not here so the money doesn't come here. One vote one person shifts the power to the big cities, where the votes are. The money follows the voters.
1
The outcome of this decision is extremely difficult to predict. On the surface it seems it would benefit conservatives but that may be only looking skin deep.
Just as citizens united had the consequence of crowding the Republican field with anybody who could rustle up a single big donor, restricting the rights of those who aren't allowed to vote, for whatever reason, may ultimately enliven a debate over whether people who live here, work here, contribute here, should be reasonably denied citizenship and the right to vote for representatives. That is not a democracy.
Those who believe everyone should have these rights can use a vote that restricts them to logically argue for other changes that give those rights back.
Just as citizens united had the consequence of crowding the Republican field with anybody who could rustle up a single big donor, restricting the rights of those who aren't allowed to vote, for whatever reason, may ultimately enliven a debate over whether people who live here, work here, contribute here, should be reasonably denied citizenship and the right to vote for representatives. That is not a democracy.
Those who believe everyone should have these rights can use a vote that restricts them to logically argue for other changes that give those rights back.
The easiest and fairest way would to apportion by tax filers. Use the IRS data banks and a simple tomographic program and you could have new districts drawn up in a week, and no more false claims of gerrymandering.
1
I must admit to some ignorance on this issue. Would this be a step towards dismantling the Electoral College? Would then a actual counting of the popular vote then be the way elections would be decided?
Hey, the Constitution was based on counting each person, some not even as whole persons; i.e. the 3/5 Compromise for slave-holding states. And they definitely weren't voting.
I'm sure the party that exists on voter suppression will somehow turn this, "one person, one vote" to their advantage via a bought and paid for Supreme Court.
The logic will go something like this, "Shouldn't Republicans in rural areas be given 2 votes to offset the Democrats in urban areas?"
It sounds logical to right-wingers I'm sure.
The logic will go something like this, "Shouldn't Republicans in rural areas be given 2 votes to offset the Democrats in urban areas?"
It sounds logical to right-wingers I'm sure.
1
i also wonder, if the "one person one vote" count is such a problem for the right-wing - how is it that they control 31 state leg's and the US House and Senate? is this 'counting' method as big a problem as 'voting fraud' ?? yeah, i thought so...
Do we need to know more than that the people bringing the case are from a conservative advocacy group concerned with "race and voting"? Translation: How can we deny the franchise to minorities in a way that passes muster with Justice Kennedy?
Yup, it's really that simple.
Yup, it's really that simple.
2
At the time the Constitution was adopted only white property owning male citizens had the right to vote. Should we go back to that time? Or should we just treat non-eligible voters as 3/5 of a person?
1
Yes I would like that - things wouldn't be falling apart like they are now with all this 'wonderful' diversity we're all enjoying.
1
Most of the non-voting population at issue here consists of the U.S.'s 75 million children. And of that total, 20 million are Hispanic, with the number of Hispanic children growing quickly. Like other ethnic groups before them, Hispanics are steadily moving out of the cities and into the suburbs. A substantial majority of Hispanics vote Democrat. But, as they move into suburban districts, that could change. The increase in suburban Hispanics makes it even more important to Democrats that their children be counted. But if their political leanings should change, counting their children would become counterproductive. Bottom line, the effect of this decision on the future of the Democratic Party will largely be determined by Hispanic voter patterns. Expect Hispanics to seek power in proportion to their influence in the Democratic Party. And expect Hispanic Democrats to be increasingly prominent among party leadership.
1
If we counted only voters, it would favor communities with smaller families (generally more liberal), as children don't vote. Plaintiffs, beware of unintended consequences.
1
If apportionment is to be apportioned by counting voters only, why shouldn't Congressional seats be apportioned among the states on the same basis. Then states that encourage voting would be rewarded with more Congressional seats. What's sauce for the goose should perhaps be sauce for the gander as well.
3
The issue is not about whether only voters should count, it's about whether only people eligible to vote should count. So the relative turnouts in various districts is irrelevant.
1
The absurdity of certain concepts is to me a driving factor in today’s lack of civilized discourse.
The Edict of Caracalla gave citizenship to every person IN Rome, not just those BORN Roman.
The distinction eventually lead to a breakdown of Roman law and values and eventually in part led to the collapse of the Western Empire.
Similar moves a thousand years later weekend the Eastern empire and the Roman/holy Roman Empire was dead.
If we make a distinction where those who just for the sake of living in the US is now given voting rights for whatever reason, the end result will be utter chaos. Not because one groups votes or the other doesn’t per se, but because national interests are destroyed without cohesion of unity. Ergo, the difference between one living here and one being here. The latter is one who assimilates into culture, leaving their old one behind and becoming “American” hyponated or not.
What happens if a law is created that everyone who simply is IN the US can vote. Regardless of nationality?
That is the crux of the demise of the Western Empire. Not voting per se, but the lack of discerning those who have a vested interest in the US or not. Apply to this what you will.
The Edict of Caracalla gave citizenship to every person IN Rome, not just those BORN Roman.
The distinction eventually lead to a breakdown of Roman law and values and eventually in part led to the collapse of the Western Empire.
Similar moves a thousand years later weekend the Eastern empire and the Roman/holy Roman Empire was dead.
If we make a distinction where those who just for the sake of living in the US is now given voting rights for whatever reason, the end result will be utter chaos. Not because one groups votes or the other doesn’t per se, but because national interests are destroyed without cohesion of unity. Ergo, the difference between one living here and one being here. The latter is one who assimilates into culture, leaving their old one behind and becoming “American” hyponated or not.
What happens if a law is created that everyone who simply is IN the US can vote. Regardless of nationality?
That is the crux of the demise of the Western Empire. Not voting per se, but the lack of discerning those who have a vested interest in the US or not. Apply to this what you will.
3
The wigged heads of Europe said that what Washington, Jefferson and Adams signed onto in July 1776 would lead the end of the civilization --- confronting a king whose absolute power came from God with the idea that that king's power was 'derived from consent of the governed.'
It is weak, and usually fact-free, argument that this or that will lead to the 'demise of Western Civilization.'
The United States was designed as a free state, in which the inhabitants -- citizen or not -- believed that they were if they were to be subject to the legislature's laws they were to be represented in that legislature.
Even in Rome, long before that edict, each group of Romans, noncitizens included, had representative systems that communicated up to the Senate. Mr. Goodman's presentation of Roman history is severely lacking in fact and analysis.
The demise of civilization begins precisely at the point that large numbers of people living in it are told that they there existence does not give them at least a representative in the system. What Mr. Goodman suggests is that civilization is strengthened by cutting off from the 'inalienable rights granted by their creator' as Jefferson wrote, because bureaucratic controls in the hands of one faction deem them not 'citizens.'
Nothing could be more wrong and absurd. Legislatures either represent all within their borders, or they only represent cliques and oligarchs, the antithesis of republican government.
It is weak, and usually fact-free, argument that this or that will lead to the 'demise of Western Civilization.'
The United States was designed as a free state, in which the inhabitants -- citizen or not -- believed that they were if they were to be subject to the legislature's laws they were to be represented in that legislature.
Even in Rome, long before that edict, each group of Romans, noncitizens included, had representative systems that communicated up to the Senate. Mr. Goodman's presentation of Roman history is severely lacking in fact and analysis.
The demise of civilization begins precisely at the point that large numbers of people living in it are told that they there existence does not give them at least a representative in the system. What Mr. Goodman suggests is that civilization is strengthened by cutting off from the 'inalienable rights granted by their creator' as Jefferson wrote, because bureaucratic controls in the hands of one faction deem them not 'citizens.'
Nothing could be more wrong and absurd. Legislatures either represent all within their borders, or they only represent cliques and oligarchs, the antithesis of republican government.
You completely misunderstand the issue.
So the Roman Empire, Byzantium, and the HRE all three fell for the same reason - the extension of voting citizenship to too many people? That's... going to come as a surprise to a lot of historians.
1
This court, via its Citizen's United and subsequent decisions, is completely unqualified to determine this case.
8
Non-voters should NOT be counted. They are not citizens or have had that right and obligation rescinded. The logical next step in counting all people is to include tourists too?
4
Nomvoters include children and people who are legally eligible to vote but don't.
or they simply are not registered.
Stupid argument since non voters are children who are citizens and yes even felons who have unfairly lost their right to vote and who are citizens. If my tax dollars are paying for education, medical and the prison system then these folks should be counted. I don't care if you send all the 11 million plus undocumented immigrants back to wherever - we are still left with millions and millions of legal citizens who basically will have no representation.
The soon-to-be-extinct Republican Party is getting desperate and unhinged with their desire to cheat.
4
Ironically, counting non-citizens for districting purposes actually strengthens the electoral power of their voting neighbors, many of whom are hostile to immigration. Look at Arizona. The industrious conservative ideologues behind this case may have miscalculated.
A politician represents the people within their city, district or state. Not just the people who voted for them. Not just the people who voted at all. They are supposed to represent ALL PEOPLE within their region. Redistricting to consider only registered or potential voters flies completely in the face of this, a fundamental pillar of our constitution. The philosophy shifts so that the only people who matter are the ones who are able and willing to vote (a right that has wavered in recent years, I might add). Those who cannot or do not, are reduced to second-class citizens with no representation.
2
Only eligible voters should be allowed to vote....no one here illegally should be allowed even tho some states are issuing them drivers licenses thereby providing them with a photo I.d. which was probably a political move for more votes....I don't know how they can vet out ineligible people but I'm sure technology can be created to do so that will also catch people voting multiple times in different areas. ... we definitely need changes to protect our voting process and cut out the different voter frauds that have occurred in the past....fraudulent voting = fraudulent results... and the one power we do still have as We The People is our vote...it needs to be protected and ineligible people prevented from voting... That's just common sense. .. Don't know why the supreme court doesn't see it that way
1
Interestingly if this gets decided by conservative justices that only 'eligible voters' count, then it is going to have an unintended, or at least counter-intuitive, consequence.
The key thing to note is that although the representatives are elected by one-person one-vote, they pursue policies geared towards only eligible voters. In fact, it is even worse. They only pursue policies geared towards the people who vote for them.
The numerous representatives who are now elected in districts where there are significant unqualified/uncounted population will be edged out and the newer representatives would represent a presumably broader district which will have a more diluted mix of non-counted population. So the pressure to pass anti-immigrant laws will be reduced, and thus the immigrants may find a more tolerable, if not welcoming, condition.
The key thing to note is that although the representatives are elected by one-person one-vote, they pursue policies geared towards only eligible voters. In fact, it is even worse. They only pursue policies geared towards the people who vote for them.
The numerous representatives who are now elected in districts where there are significant unqualified/uncounted population will be edged out and the newer representatives would represent a presumably broader district which will have a more diluted mix of non-counted population. So the pressure to pass anti-immigrant laws will be reduced, and thus the immigrants may find a more tolerable, if not welcoming, condition.
1
After a slew of previous anti-democratic politically motivated decisions by the Republican majority currently disgracing the Court (Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, Shelby County v. Holder, etc.), only the most gullible would believe a "decision" regarding this issue isn't preordained.
3
The appellants in this case are opening a can of worms. So at what level do we count citizens versus inhabitants? What will we be asking of the Census? How often will we be re districting, after every election? So say there is another election where registration surges ,do we redistribute automatically? In the age of very adept computers ,do we respond as fast to redistribution of seats in Congress? Low turnout in many Southern states such as Kentucky will lose seats. What if it is the intention of some voters to not vote because the outcome is almost guarranteed? The guesstimate of the appellants of what a vote might be worth opens for many different outcomes ,but not a clear vision of what strict constructionists may view. All the laws by Republicans to limit voting access may just backfire, cutting their goal of solid Republican electorate. Democrats need to expand their base by simply registering voters as fast as they can. Start with Kentucky. If people realize they have more to lose , the motivation is there.
Cities are our economic powerhouses and our centers of innovation. Rural interests RELY on cities for their income. You can't sell corn to one another and have a vibrant economy. I understand why the Right wants to disempower cities and unions. The Civil Rights movement was largely funded by people who lived in cities and had actual income rather than those who lived on subsistence farms. But as with all Rightwing initiatives they cut off their nose to spite their face.
2
The definition of a "voter" here is interesting, yet it seems this is a slippery slope has not been thought through. Does "voter" mean:
1. Person
2. Eligible
3. Registered
4. Votes sometimes
5. Votes consistently
6. Party operative
7. Any of the above with any other status criterion (e.g., education, income)
While there's a big difference between 1 and 2, that is arguably less important than 2 vs 3 or 3 vs 5. But all of this sounds dangerous to me!
1. Person
2. Eligible
3. Registered
4. Votes sometimes
5. Votes consistently
6. Party operative
7. Any of the above with any other status criterion (e.g., education, income)
While there's a big difference between 1 and 2, that is arguably less important than 2 vs 3 or 3 vs 5. But all of this sounds dangerous to me!
It will be interesting to see what happens to rural Republican idstricts that house prisons. Currently, the prison populations are counted as part of the district, but cannot vote. If the prisoners don't count in state districting, would prison-containing districts have to be merged with adjacent areas? And wouldn't that reduce the power of voters who were in the original district?
1
ORIGINALIST INTENT It is ludicrous that Thomas would take the position stated here if he believes in originalist intent. Who were counted as voters at the time of the signing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? White men who owned property. That means that a white male who owned a large plantation would, in effect, be casting a vote that usurped the rights of the many slaves he owned as well as family members and other workers.
By any standard of logic, Thomas's position is preposterous. It is convenient for him to call himself an "originalist" who is fully "evolved." Is he an activist judge who wishes to legislate from the bench for the "restoration of the Constitution" to take things back to colonial times? Perhaps not. But that's sure the way it looks to me in this article.
I'm sure that the Court will be linguistically negligent as it usually is, by not defining its terms clearly. What is it about "one person one vote" that is unclear? What possible motivation could there have been for gerrymandering districts if not an attempt to defeat the principle of one person one vote?
The sense of entitlement of the complainants is typical of GOP extremists who believe that they are the chosen ones who are performing good deeds to achieve holiness. Their motivation is to turn the country into a theocracy of their choosing: evangelist extremist political activists.
Question: How many voters would Jesus deny access to the ballot?
By any standard of logic, Thomas's position is preposterous. It is convenient for him to call himself an "originalist" who is fully "evolved." Is he an activist judge who wishes to legislate from the bench for the "restoration of the Constitution" to take things back to colonial times? Perhaps not. But that's sure the way it looks to me in this article.
I'm sure that the Court will be linguistically negligent as it usually is, by not defining its terms clearly. What is it about "one person one vote" that is unclear? What possible motivation could there have been for gerrymandering districts if not an attempt to defeat the principle of one person one vote?
The sense of entitlement of the complainants is typical of GOP extremists who believe that they are the chosen ones who are performing good deeds to achieve holiness. Their motivation is to turn the country into a theocracy of their choosing: evangelist extremist political activists.
Question: How many voters would Jesus deny access to the ballot?
1
Representatives represent everyone, including infants, people with dementia, prisoners, recent immigrants, and people too frightened to participate in public life.
3
I believe representation should reflect both total population and economic contribution to GDP. NY, CA, and TX are all under-represented economically in the House. NY contributes far more to the US economy than FL, yet FL has more representation based solely on population and they receive far more in Federal dollars than they need or deserve. The states which contribute the most to our economy, as well as all eligible persons deserve proper representation.
2
Seems the Dems are getting more than their fair share of Representation.
1
So if we really go to one person, one vote, we don't need the electoral college, right? If I recall, that was designed in part to give more votes to rural areas than they would normally have, if things were based on population alone.
1
Considering the catastrophic and criminal decision the John Robert's supreme court has already made to remove democracy from America with Citizen's United, one has little hope that his court will now seek to serve democracy in any of its decisions.
3
Have people forgotten that this country was founded on the principle of "No Taxation Without Representation." I guess then legal immigrants shouldn't be taxed either if the court believes they shouldn't be counted?
Also, I assume that children, who also cannot vote, should really not get counted either.
What an embarrassment that this is actually an issue we are debating 239 years after this country's founding.
Also, I assume that children, who also cannot vote, should really not get counted either.
What an embarrassment that this is actually an issue we are debating 239 years after this country's founding.
6
Makes more sense to just count eligible voters. If a felon or prisoner's opinion counts we wouldn't have strip them of voting rights in the first place. Same for minors. We don't trust a minor's ability to make decision for himself so it makes no sense to count him when calculating how-to-divide voting rights.
1
I'm a *shocked* (not) that so many have forgotten that the constitution demands counting of whole persons, with one very interesting exception. From section 2 of the 14th amendment: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
It didn't say just eligible voters.
Side note: my fiance has a visa and despite not being a citizen of this country, had to sign up for the Selective Service. You know, the one in which he can be drafted to fight in wars if a draft is issued? So, for you guys who think non-citizens don't have any stake in the American way of life, think again. Despite not being a citizen, my fiance *could* die for this country. So, non-citizens do have something at stake as well.
It didn't say just eligible voters.
Side note: my fiance has a visa and despite not being a citizen of this country, had to sign up for the Selective Service. You know, the one in which he can be drafted to fight in wars if a draft is issued? So, for you guys who think non-citizens don't have any stake in the American way of life, think again. Despite not being a citizen, my fiance *could* die for this country. So, non-citizens do have something at stake as well.
7
Non-voters must be counted in districts. They must live with the decisions the elected representative makes just like the voters . Non-voters are contributing to income taxation and sales tax as per the state, and it is indefensible that they be marginalized because their voices are silenced by any of the following conditions: immigrants non-citizens, too young to register, and the exclusion resulting from mean spirited voter registration as per Red states.
2
The constitution requires counting residents by census to determine the number of representatives accorded to each state. This case has nothing to do with that requirement because this case does not involve the number of representatives that a state has. Instead this case is about voter disenfranchisement. That principle has been clearly decided by prior decisions, districts cannot disenfranchise minority voters when determining the makeup of a representational district. The Supreme Court will now apply that same principle even when the issue does not involve race. The principle of one person - one vote (regardless of race or anything else) through equalizing district size (within a state) in terms of eligible voters will be upheld. The issue will cut both ways for political parties. Rural populations containing prisons will no longer be able to count those prisoners when determining the size of the district. Poor rural areas with populations of undocumented farm workers likewise will no longer be able to count those people when determining the size of their district - that is, to get the benefit of their residence but in essence get to vote for them since they are not eligible to vote in the actual election.
2
Coverage of this case today is interesting timing because of last night's "Landmark Cases" program on Baker vs. Carr, part of pbs' excellent series on landmark supreme ct rulings. The "one person one vote" concept has only been with us since the early 1960s, thanks to the efforts of Earl Warren. Justice Brennan wrote the majority opinion in Baker v. Carr, which found a violation of the equal protection clause in situations where a State determines statewide voting by district (where the winner might win with, say, a majority of 7 districts) where the districts have unequal numbers of voters and the outcome therefore reduces the voting power of certain districts (usually those that are primarily Black and/or urban).
Chief Justice Warren called the decision perhaps the most important of all the Warren Court decisions, including Brown and Miranda.
Like so many important advances in American jurisprudence that broadened and more consistently defined the rights of voters and citizens, the rights then articulated by the court are under heavy attack from today's conservatives whose views echo those of Felix Frankfurter, who vociferously dissented in Baker vs. Carr claiming that courts have no business getting involved in this area, which he viewed as a political matter.
Chief Justice Warren called the decision perhaps the most important of all the Warren Court decisions, including Brown and Miranda.
Like so many important advances in American jurisprudence that broadened and more consistently defined the rights of voters and citizens, the rights then articulated by the court are under heavy attack from today's conservatives whose views echo those of Felix Frankfurter, who vociferously dissented in Baker vs. Carr claiming that courts have no business getting involved in this area, which he viewed as a political matter.
1
There is a difference.
A state representative makes policy decisions which impact the lives of everyone in the state - children, the elderly, consumers, business owners, etc., and so the number of representatives should be apportioned based on the census.
The right to vote is reserved for adults who are capable - should they chose to or not - make an informed decision and have a vested interest in the well being of our nation.
A state representative makes policy decisions which impact the lives of everyone in the state - children, the elderly, consumers, business owners, etc., and so the number of representatives should be apportioned based on the census.
The right to vote is reserved for adults who are capable - should they chose to or not - make an informed decision and have a vested interest in the well being of our nation.
What is unclear about the language of the Constitution? "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN EACH STATE, excluding Indians not taxed." Women could not even vote when that was enacted, but they were counted for representation.
1
I know most readers of the NY Times care more about national elections than local ones. How does this principle matter when only 10% to 15% of registered voters participate in a local election? In some cities it means than less than 5% of the adult population decides who is Mayor, elects Board of Education members and every other elected Board in that town.
1
As this ruling would benefit the conservative rural Republican heartland, I predict SCOTUS will vote in favor benefiting its political base.
But, I've become somewhat cynical in my advancing years and I might be wrong. I do hope so...
But, I've become somewhat cynical in my advancing years and I might be wrong. I do hope so...
The census only counts whole persons. The government official who reduces that count to a fractional person thereby overrides the role and validity of the census, which is also established by the Constitution. Doing so deprives each voter in the entire district of a piece of their constitutionally-mandated representation.
If the SCOTUS were to approve creative counting, it would in fact become constitutional law and open the door to expansion of its long-dead ancestor -- the 3/5 Compromise.
If the SCOTUS were to approve creative counting, it would in fact become constitutional law and open the door to expansion of its long-dead ancestor -- the 3/5 Compromise.
1
Of course we could compromise and count non-citizens as three-fifths of a person. There's certainly a Constitutional precedent for that.
1
It doesn't comfort me in the least that Justice Thomas has decided he of all people has an obligation to explain what the one person one vote principle means.
1
After the Gore/Bush Elections 6 newspapers spent 3 million and 6 months to see who really won the election- when they found out that Bush was truly the winner, they "buried" the results in the middle of the paper- so first ask the NY Times- they will tell you Bush won that Election fair and square- I would like to see Voter ID to Stop the cheating- I have to use my Photo ID for everything else- and I agree with the Liberals every person should be counted in the census
1
No one found that Bush was truly the winner,they found that Republican voter suppression tactics and the limits Bush and his brother managed to place on the recount gave him his narrrow and questionable victory.
If it were not for the "interpretation" of the second amendment by this court, this case would be a nuisance case. The second 13th amendment clearly states: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
1
Next thing you know we'll be counting "selected persons" as only three-fifths of a person -- again!
2
The great thing about the Supreme Court is we know how they will rule.
4 Republican justices. They will rule in whatever way will help the GOP.
4 Democratic justices. They will rule in whatever way will help the Democratic Party.
We need all districts to be drawn by non-partisan citizen committees. We have allowed the political parties to pick their own voters.
4 Republican justices. They will rule in whatever way will help the GOP.
4 Democratic justices. They will rule in whatever way will help the Democratic Party.
We need all districts to be drawn by non-partisan citizen committees. We have allowed the political parties to pick their own voters.
2
Hey Texas,
If you get the right to exclude non-eligible voters from representation in your state senate - perhaps you will also agree to exclude them from paying Texas state taxes.
Sounds fair.
If you get the right to exclude non-eligible voters from representation in your state senate - perhaps you will also agree to exclude them from paying Texas state taxes.
Sounds fair.
4
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment allocates the number of seats each state gets in the House of Representatives on each state's total population, but this does not apply to the design of voting districts; it merely determines the allocation of representatives. Section 2 specifically states that the right to vote cannot be denied to citizens unless they have forfeited their right to vote by committing crimes. In voting district design, the plaintiffs in the Texas case want to exclude noncitizens and criminals whose voting rights have not been restored, the same people excluded by the 14th Amendment.
So anyone who looses representation due to not being a registered voter needn't obey laws enacted by those who are registered voters. Right??? I can see the South making it all but impossible for people of color to register if this decision goes their way. Good-bye representative democracy.
The Supreme Court had no business taking this case. This has been settled law for 50 years.
The states are not chomping at the bit to change how legislative districts are determined. What we have here is a case of right wing radicals seeking to sew the seed of dissent into every state in the union. I would have thought even their fellow right wingers on the Court would have been able to see that we already have enough dissent with out adding new material.
From the time that Taney refused to issue an opinion in 1848 in Luther v. Borden until the Warren court was pressured to take the 1960 apportionment cases, the Court refused to get involved in apportionment. Making political decisions is beyond the limits set for them in the Constitution. The are supposed to be a court, not legislators.
Texas Senate apportionment is political. In their own briefs, the appellants acknowledged that it is entirely possible to define Texas Senate districts which contain roughly the same number of voters as well as people.
In his 1962 Baker dissent, Justice Frankfurter wrote, “Disregard of inherent limits in the effective exercise of the Court's ‘judicial Power’ not only presages the futility of judicial intervention in the essentially political conflict of forces by which the relation between population and representation has time out of mind been, and now is, determined. It may well impair the Court's position as the ultimate organ of ‘the supreme Law of the Land’…”
The states are not chomping at the bit to change how legislative districts are determined. What we have here is a case of right wing radicals seeking to sew the seed of dissent into every state in the union. I would have thought even their fellow right wingers on the Court would have been able to see that we already have enough dissent with out adding new material.
From the time that Taney refused to issue an opinion in 1848 in Luther v. Borden until the Warren court was pressured to take the 1960 apportionment cases, the Court refused to get involved in apportionment. Making political decisions is beyond the limits set for them in the Constitution. The are supposed to be a court, not legislators.
Texas Senate apportionment is political. In their own briefs, the appellants acknowledged that it is entirely possible to define Texas Senate districts which contain roughly the same number of voters as well as people.
In his 1962 Baker dissent, Justice Frankfurter wrote, “Disregard of inherent limits in the effective exercise of the Court's ‘judicial Power’ not only presages the futility of judicial intervention in the essentially political conflict of forces by which the relation between population and representation has time out of mind been, and now is, determined. It may well impair the Court's position as the ultimate organ of ‘the supreme Law of the Land’…”
1
So, we face the prospect that corporations are considered to be people but real people who aren't eligible voters are not? Conservatives seem more interested in gaining/retaining power than in doing the correct thing. They forget the words of the first Lord Acton - Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
5
This challenge makes sense. Shouldn't an election be decided by the voters in the district? If you count people ineligible to vote, you might as well count pets and trees.
Using the concept 'one person one vote' would each voter their fair share of the representatives. Nothing wrong with that.
Using the concept 'one person one vote' would each voter their fair share of the representatives. Nothing wrong with that.
1
Appalling that we are facing yet another set back to voting rights. Yet another demonstration of the devastation caused by a Republican dominated Supreme Court.
11
Yes, the power of democracy is based on the vote. Why should people who cannot vote be represented in their state legislatures? Bottom line is that they shouldn't.
5
Because they still pay taxes.
1
What in the world?!?! Children's interests shouldn't be represented in the state legislature? I guess the legal system and police protection also should only be available to voters?
Government is for all of us, whether or not we participate in it.
Government is for all of us, whether or not we participate in it.
Because they're people? An elected representative of the people represent all of his/her constituents, regardless of how they voted, whether they voted, or whether they were allowed to vote.
Putting aside the desirability or practical consequences of a decision for one side or the other, isn't the Court bound by the plain wording of the 14th Amendment, which requires "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed"? It would fly in the face of any claim by a jurist that he or she is bound by either original intent or original meaning to interpret the constitution as reading "... excluding Indians not taxed and those ineligible to vote."
8
I would argue that neither resident nor registered voter should be counted. The basis for the count should be strictly limited to one category; US citizens.
As a citizen, you are entitled to all of the benefits this country has to offer as well as burdened by all of the responsibilities.
Voting is not one of those responsibilities. A citizen has the right to refuse to vote or register to vote.
A citizen's voting record should not affect their standing as a US citizen and the rights and responsibilities that citizenship confers upon them.
As a citizen, you are entitled to all of the benefits this country has to offer as well as burdened by all of the responsibilities.
Voting is not one of those responsibilities. A citizen has the right to refuse to vote or register to vote.
A citizen's voting record should not affect their standing as a US citizen and the rights and responsibilities that citizenship confers upon them.
2
Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, who are pushing these changes, are two older white folks. That's just shocking!!!
1
Time to bring back the rallying cry: "No taxation without representation ".
3
Issues such as this inevitably break down along party lines because we find ourselves fighting over a limited resource - representatives in Congress - which doesn't actually have to be limited. The real problem is that the amount of representatives in Congress hasn't changed in almost 90 years, so the task has changed from dividing up the population equally to dividing up the population equally among 435 representatives. So, you end up situations like Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota having fewer people than the average district and so having more voting power in a system that is supposedly equal. And, this doesn't even address those of us who have no vote in Congress.
It would be nice if the Supreme Court would/could somehow rule that each representative must represent a roughly equal number of people (and every person/voter/eligible voter must be represented) and that the size of the House must be based on this number and not the other way around. As it stands, it seems like our political system likes the status quo regardless of whether it represents the people.
It would be nice if the Supreme Court would/could somehow rule that each representative must represent a roughly equal number of people (and every person/voter/eligible voter must be represented) and that the size of the House must be based on this number and not the other way around. As it stands, it seems like our political system likes the status quo regardless of whether it represents the people.
Strangely it would seem that the courts and the Founding Fathers wanted it both ways as it were. It seems consistent that, where the Constitution states all "persons" are to be counted, it is representative of a recognition that our United States must acknowledge that their are non-voting parties whose interests cannot wholly be ignored in the apportionment of power and resources. It is equally consistent though to recognize that while non-voting parties cannot be wholly ignored by society writ large, they should not in fact be given voting powers, influence and full rights of the voting citizenry.
Regardless of how you feel, the first duty of any governing body is to those whom it's precepts are called to serve which in this case is the voting citizen, the full legal American. Must the rights of non-citizens be wholly trampled? No of course not but the rights and privileges of a non-citizen must always be subordinate to that of a voting citizen in the eyes and legal structure of the governing body/authority. To hold the rights of non-citizens above that of citizens is to make a mockery of what it means to be a sovereign democratic republic. Sadly we have come to a place in society where the rights of non-voting citizens often are placed in higher accord than those of citizens. It is why Police forces have non cite policies for illegals. It is why Big Business corrupts our politicians to expand H1B visas.
We have forgotten whom we must serve and so do mock ourselves...
Regardless of how you feel, the first duty of any governing body is to those whom it's precepts are called to serve which in this case is the voting citizen, the full legal American. Must the rights of non-citizens be wholly trampled? No of course not but the rights and privileges of a non-citizen must always be subordinate to that of a voting citizen in the eyes and legal structure of the governing body/authority. To hold the rights of non-citizens above that of citizens is to make a mockery of what it means to be a sovereign democratic republic. Sadly we have come to a place in society where the rights of non-voting citizens often are placed in higher accord than those of citizens. It is why Police forces have non cite policies for illegals. It is why Big Business corrupts our politicians to expand H1B visas.
We have forgotten whom we must serve and so do mock ourselves...
3
Your convoluted logic is the mockery.
Not all eligible people vote, not all voters remain in their districts, everyone living in a district is affected by the elections that take place.
Simple. Count everyone.
Not all eligible people vote, not all voters remain in their districts, everyone living in a district is affected by the elections that take place.
Simple. Count everyone.
1
I'm a political scientist who studies districting and redistricting. I have done so for 20 years and have LOTS of experience with evaluating, drawing, and defending plans.
Here's the problem with only counting voters or people theoretically eligible to vote: THE DATA DOES NOT EXIST consistently across the 50 states or even within the states sometimes. Even if SCOTUS ruled that this method of counting voters or those eligible were allowed or (even worse) required by the 14th amendment, it could NOT BE DONE without drastically expanding the Census' reach and budget.
And last time I looked the GOP in Congress was pretty hostile to the Census Bureau.
This would be an utter disaster from a technical perspective, not to mention the basic questions of fairness.
Here's the problem with only counting voters or people theoretically eligible to vote: THE DATA DOES NOT EXIST consistently across the 50 states or even within the states sometimes. Even if SCOTUS ruled that this method of counting voters or those eligible were allowed or (even worse) required by the 14th amendment, it could NOT BE DONE without drastically expanding the Census' reach and budget.
And last time I looked the GOP in Congress was pretty hostile to the Census Bureau.
This would be an utter disaster from a technical perspective, not to mention the basic questions of fairness.
25
"This would be an utter disaster from a technical perspective, not to mention the basic questions of fairness."
It's funny. I was just thinking this with regard to the way states currently try to count people and draw out districts.
It's funny. I was just thinking this with regard to the way states currently try to count people and draw out districts.
In the House of Representatives, “one person, one vote” may be murky. But how about presidential elections, where it is very clear? The only mathematical way to have “one person, one vote” is to simply count all the votes regardless of where they are cast.
If we had true “one person, one vote” for presidential elections, Al Gore would have been president, and George W. Bush would never have been.
Let us apply “one person, one vote” where the issue is clear.
If we had true “one person, one vote” for presidential elections, Al Gore would have been president, and George W. Bush would never have been.
Let us apply “one person, one vote” where the issue is clear.
8
That pesky constitution! There is a proceed to amend it. And yup, it g ave over representation to less populous ones as a compromise.
A few examples would have been useful.
1
I foresee a Dred Scott-like decision on this one. People who aren't eligible to vote actually aren't "people" after all? I can see four or five members of the current Supreme Court agreeing to that.
3
Yes but corporations are people so they will start counting those instead, and probably make them eligible to vote too.
4
Interesting...so, if I vote and work at a large corporation, can I be two people?
I find it odd that those under the NYT picks section seem to either misunderstand the issue or are blatantly lying about it. They keep saying how the measure is trying to basically disenfranchise minority voters, which is completely untrue. This is about those who are eligible to vote vs those who cannot. When it comes to determine populations and numbers of persons in regards to votes and voting power, it is only correct that eligible voters should be considered. It is unfair and undemocratic to dilute those numbers with people who are not eligible to vote. It doesnt matter if those voters or white, black, hispanic, etc, it just matters if they are eligible to vote.
3
Rural voters already have the advantage, because they get far more senators per voter and they get a large advantage in the electoral college for ghee same reason.
So it'd you are worried about one person one vote, get rid of the Senate, and make the presidential vote directly based on voters and get rid of the electoral college.
So it'd you are worried about one person one vote, get rid of the Senate, and make the presidential vote directly based on voters and get rid of the electoral college.
1
So a child in (let's say) rural Texas should count more than a child in (for example) Chicago?
But in your own state of Florida, convicted felons lose their voting privileges for the rest of their lives. Surely removing their numbers permanently from population counts would disenfranchise minorities more.
If "progressives" insist that illegal aliens should be counted then I will wholeheartedly support Trump's idea.
1
You sound like an alien and a Trump supporter and anti- progress. I, on the other hand, am progressive - proud of it. Progressives made this country.
1
they already are, that's what gave the GOP huge bumps in the US House and Electors in the South.
1
Interesting approach to intra-State representational apportionment. It would actually be very easy and accurate to do this based not on a count of people eligible to vote, but on REGISTERED VOTERS. Probably result in massive re-gerrymandering.
As Republicans like to point out at other times, Mickey Mouse is registered to vote in almost every state.
There are a couple of points about this issue that I believe people would do well to consider. First, the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions in the mid-20th century which instituted a one person - one vote doctrine. Those decisions were based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and not necessarily the language or intent of the original constituion. So whether slaves, (then) disenfranchised women, children, etc were counted toward representational apportionment in the early days of the Republic is not really the controlling or central factor in this present argument.
Second, those same mid-20th century cases ruled that things such as geographically apportioned state senates and bodies such as the NYC Board of Estimate granted some voters more influence and power than other voters, and as such were unconstitutional. They focused to a large extent on vote dilution, just as this current cases argues the same.
One last point, under current Supreme Court doctrine states would be wholly within their right to base their legeslative districts off of voter population instead of total population. This current case is asking whether that should be a requirement rather than an option.
Second, those same mid-20th century cases ruled that things such as geographically apportioned state senates and bodies such as the NYC Board of Estimate granted some voters more influence and power than other voters, and as such were unconstitutional. They focused to a large extent on vote dilution, just as this current cases argues the same.
One last point, under current Supreme Court doctrine states would be wholly within their right to base their legeslative districts off of voter population instead of total population. This current case is asking whether that should be a requirement rather than an option.
2
If you are counting only eligible voters, the argument could as easily be made that only those who actually vote should be counted. But elected representatives have the obligation to represent the interests and welfare of everyone in their districts, including children, those who don't show up to vote, and others.
The real representation issue (in addition to not allowing certain people to vote) is rigging the system with gerrymandering. That is clearly unconstitutional and has the sole purpose of disenfranchising voters.
The real representation issue (in addition to not allowing certain people to vote) is rigging the system with gerrymandering. That is clearly unconstitutional and has the sole purpose of disenfranchising voters.
10
its good that americans still have th delusion that their vote counts
w all th guns in th usa, if they ever figured out that what they want doesnt matter at all, it could be sticky
w all th guns in th usa, if they ever figured out that what they want doesnt matter at all, it could be sticky
2
If we're going to strike down using total population then it's time we strike down practices that group voters by ethnicity or other proxies for who they will vote in order to dilute the value of those that will vote against those in power. Texas is the center of this despicable practice typically referred to as "gerrymandering". This is one of the most corrosive ways that democracy is undermined. A few states have gone to a nonpartison approach with guidelines that prevent this kind of subversion of democracy. If the Republicans were out to support democracy they'd support this approach but in Texas the Republicans are just about manipulating the system to preserve their power and perks.
6
Sometimes academics gets in the way of pragmatics: the goal here is to have functional representation, particulars can result in a quagmire that diminishes equal competitive opportunity in the benefits of an individual in a free society.
If you want people to register to vote, hope the Supreme Court decides that one person one vote means registered voters and not simply the number of persons living in a district. I, myself, find that I am countered under the old Constitutional provision of 3/5 of a vote compared to the voters in central Los Angeles who benefit from the large illegal population.
3
I didn't see anything about children. Will children be counted? Should big family states and districts would lose representation to small family states and districts?
1
The next thing these “conservative” groups will demand is only those who own property can vote.... then, the amount of property will determine the number of votes...
11
And then they'll bring back the Japanese newspapers for literacy tests!
4
The Roberts SC wants to remake the US judicial & legislative bodies so conservative representatives have more power. They seem to forget that the US was born thru violence, the Boston Tea Party comes to mind.
Should power shift to rural areas over cities there will be a roll back in wages so undocumented workers can be obtained. Cities will see revenue stagnate and collapse. The very rich will do even better than they are now while the rest will be even harder pressed.
The end result is cities will burn and commerce will cease. Rural people will be able to protect their property as long as they are well removed from cities but they will lose their clients, their farms, and all they have. It won't be quick, it'll take years maybe decades but it won't work.
Conservative jurists voted to hear this case. This is on their heads. We must shoulder the burden of democracy when our leaders continue to fail by seizing power at any cost. I don't think it will be a profitable exercise any more. Indeed, it will get violent.
Should power shift to rural areas over cities there will be a roll back in wages so undocumented workers can be obtained. Cities will see revenue stagnate and collapse. The very rich will do even better than they are now while the rest will be even harder pressed.
The end result is cities will burn and commerce will cease. Rural people will be able to protect their property as long as they are well removed from cities but they will lose their clients, their farms, and all they have. It won't be quick, it'll take years maybe decades but it won't work.
Conservative jurists voted to hear this case. This is on their heads. We must shoulder the burden of democracy when our leaders continue to fail by seizing power at any cost. I don't think it will be a profitable exercise any more. Indeed, it will get violent.
5
Why don't we go back to the Republicans "good old days" and count each undocumented worker as 3/5 th of a person. "The South shall rise again".
4
The children of each state who are citizens, but not voters, deserve representation.
If not, then US citizenship as an idea is meaningless.
The clear objective of this lawsuit is grant total powers to statehouse cliques to select who may vote for them, thus ensuring their perpetual hold on power.
This violates the idea of representative government -- and the US constitution gives the national government power to ensure that each state has a valid, republican form of government.
The Court must find against the plaintiffs, and establish clearly and for all that the basis of good civil order is the belief on the part of each resident that they are represented in their legislature. That very thing is the thing, and the only thing, that can reasonably compel good social order and peace.
Apparently the sort of people who filed this lawsuit believe that social order and peace in a free state is created and preserved only by force of arms -- the mistake made by every enemy of the United States throughout its long history.
This lawsuit is an attack of anti-liberty authoritarians on the US Constitution.
If not, then US citizenship as an idea is meaningless.
The clear objective of this lawsuit is grant total powers to statehouse cliques to select who may vote for them, thus ensuring their perpetual hold on power.
This violates the idea of representative government -- and the US constitution gives the national government power to ensure that each state has a valid, republican form of government.
The Court must find against the plaintiffs, and establish clearly and for all that the basis of good civil order is the belief on the part of each resident that they are represented in their legislature. That very thing is the thing, and the only thing, that can reasonably compel good social order and peace.
Apparently the sort of people who filed this lawsuit believe that social order and peace in a free state is created and preserved only by force of arms -- the mistake made by every enemy of the United States throughout its long history.
This lawsuit is an attack of anti-liberty authoritarians on the US Constitution.
87
I don't think this lawsuit is primarily an attack of what I will call Citizens not yet of voting age. I think this is a clarion call to ensure that power is not unduly given to legal and illegal immigrants which tend to aggregate towards urban city centers for Jobs and Education.
What could be more American than simply ensuring that only Americans are given political power?
What could be more American than simply ensuring that only Americans are given political power?
2
@Ryan - Since Citizens United, Super PACs are legally entitled to directly influence American politics, and there is no citizenship test for the greenbacks flowing into those.
The US Supreme Court upheld the right of foreign interests to influence US politics... sorry for the wakeup.
The US Supreme Court upheld the right of foreign interests to influence US politics... sorry for the wakeup.
1
@pnut - No wake up needed. I am very anti-Super PACS and recognize they are another scourge and corrupting force on our politics. I just didn't mention them as they weren't really the topic but I hear and agree with you.
With conservatives actively going after the right to vote, which we thought was fundamental to this country, is it any wondering they are cheering Donald Trump even as he makes proposals that run headlong into the bill of rights?
2
Given that members of my own family fought and died for the principle of 'No taxation without representation" -- the claims of this lawsuit are ridiculous and cynical.
The Framers created all-persons representation because they believed that those who were not represented could morally say they did not have to pay tax -- or follow any law -- created by the new Constitutional government. The 14th Amendment, and basic logic and morality extends that idea to every US state.
A finding for the plaintiffs will tell the nation's children that their citizenship right at birth comes with a dictatorial government from which they excluded until they meet the government's requirements to vote, which shift all the time in an attempt to continually reduce the number of voters so that minority oligarchs can maintain power in the state capitols.
In this lawsuit and seeds of a national youth insurgency never before seen on this continent.
The Court must find against the plaintiffs and preserve the idea that representative government in this country -- federal, state and local -- is representation of the interests of all people resident within their borders.
Any other conclusion is immoral, illogical, unworkable and threatens the good order of the nation and true liberty of each person.
The Framers created all-persons representation because they believed that those who were not represented could morally say they did not have to pay tax -- or follow any law -- created by the new Constitutional government. The 14th Amendment, and basic logic and morality extends that idea to every US state.
A finding for the plaintiffs will tell the nation's children that their citizenship right at birth comes with a dictatorial government from which they excluded until they meet the government's requirements to vote, which shift all the time in an attempt to continually reduce the number of voters so that minority oligarchs can maintain power in the state capitols.
In this lawsuit and seeds of a national youth insurgency never before seen on this continent.
The Court must find against the plaintiffs and preserve the idea that representative government in this country -- federal, state and local -- is representation of the interests of all people resident within their borders.
Any other conclusion is immoral, illogical, unworkable and threatens the good order of the nation and true liberty of each person.
6
Considering that the Citizens United ruling has already perverted our electoral process this seems a natural progression. As it stands our system is, in effect, One Dollar = One Vote. Rigging the census to favor those who have proven themselves wiling to vote against their own interests is another move toward the feudalization of America.
We the People have already ceded power to the oligarchs. Regardless of how congressional districts are drawn or how many obstacles are thrown in the way it is our privilege, right and our duty to show up at the polls. Things will not change as long as we have voter participation hovering around 30% on a good day.
We are still a year from the election. That's plenty of time to get whatever ridiculous form of ID is required or to set yourself up with an absentee ballot or to do whatever is going to be necessary to cast your vote. Quit whining and just do it. These problems won't be addressed until we have elected representatives that have our interests at heart so get over it and vote.
The situation can be fixed but don't expect the fix to come from the Supremes, or from Congress The fault does not lay in our stars my friends. It is in ourselves.
We the People have already ceded power to the oligarchs. Regardless of how congressional districts are drawn or how many obstacles are thrown in the way it is our privilege, right and our duty to show up at the polls. Things will not change as long as we have voter participation hovering around 30% on a good day.
We are still a year from the election. That's plenty of time to get whatever ridiculous form of ID is required or to set yourself up with an absentee ballot or to do whatever is going to be necessary to cast your vote. Quit whining and just do it. These problems won't be addressed until we have elected representatives that have our interests at heart so get over it and vote.
The situation can be fixed but don't expect the fix to come from the Supremes, or from Congress The fault does not lay in our stars my friends. It is in ourselves.
2
This will backfire.
3
I very much agree with those who point out that this would deny representation to exactly those who are most vulnerable and most in need of representation - those unable or unlikely to vote - the poor, children, the sick, the disabled, immigrants - whether here legally or not - and whom the Constitution clearly meant to protect. People are people - there is such a thing as basic humanity which we seem to be losing in this country. And I don't mean to offend anyone but I agree this is yet another blatant power grab.
2
Thomas Jefferson said "vigilance" - not ignorance and poor schools - was the price of Democracy. Giving rural areas in the US more power to sway elections will have the same result here as letting Japanese Rice Farmers have more say does in Japan!
The rich and powerful who run this country have never believed in real electoral democracy where all those affected by the government have the legal and practical right to represent themselves through the ballot box.
Their problem is that there are way more of us than of them. Our problem is that they, with the help of their Supreme Court majority, continue to find ways to keep us effectively disenfranchised.
First, by inventing all sorts of voting restrictions, from taking the vote away from as many of us as possible to making all of us vote on a work day. (In most countries, it's a holiday.)
And second, by making our votes all but meaningless by restricting our electoral options to a choice between only two parties, both equally beholding to their money, and then legally buying up whoever we elect anyway.
The result is that a smaller percentage Americans vote than in most nations that hold elections. Why don't just they get it over with by making corporations and billionaires the only eligible voters?
The results would be about the same, but it would much cheaper and we wouldn't have to suffer through such long and annoying (if occasionally entertaining) election cycles.
Their problem is that there are way more of us than of them. Our problem is that they, with the help of their Supreme Court majority, continue to find ways to keep us effectively disenfranchised.
First, by inventing all sorts of voting restrictions, from taking the vote away from as many of us as possible to making all of us vote on a work day. (In most countries, it's a holiday.)
And second, by making our votes all but meaningless by restricting our electoral options to a choice between only two parties, both equally beholding to their money, and then legally buying up whoever we elect anyway.
The result is that a smaller percentage Americans vote than in most nations that hold elections. Why don't just they get it over with by making corporations and billionaires the only eligible voters?
The results would be about the same, but it would much cheaper and we wouldn't have to suffer through such long and annoying (if occasionally entertaining) election cycles.
2
If the court finds for the plaintiffs in this case, you will only have to wait seconds for a member of Congress to say they don't need to do anything for abused children -- "I don't represent them. I represent the voters!"
1
If this lawsuit is successful, our country's transformation from democracy to idiocracy will be complete.
1
The U.S. Constitution gives the court some basis for a decision. Every decade the membership of the House is reapportioned among the states based on results of the census, which counts all individuals -- voters and non-voters, alike.
2
Eligible Voters + Minority Voter Suppression = The Perfect Republican Electorate
And then after successfully fashioning the Perfect Republican Electorate, will there be shock when the disenfranchised, underrepresented revolt against the plantation owners.?
And then after successfully fashioning the Perfect Republican Electorate, will there be shock when the disenfranchised, underrepresented revolt against the plantation owners.?
2
More cant from the right trying to 'interpret' plain English.
1
Population means population, period. Let's say there are many children in one district relative to its neighbor. If you don't count them as people, and redistrict accordingly, their interests are rebuffed by diluting their parents' votes. Along with curtailing ways of registering to vote, this is just one more way top limit the franchise. Already I'm hearing rumblings from the right that only property owners should have the vote.
4
Just as Donald J. Trump's ban on Muslims is in effect a statement to Muslims to "go join ISIS," a finding for the plaintiff's in this suit would be a statement to aliens (registered and not), children, etc. to "go violate the law, it won't protect you anyway."
Madison, Hamilton, Washington et al defined in our Constitution representation as representation no less than all people (slaves counted as three-fifths until the Lincoln Administration) because they themselves fought against a tyrannical government over what constituted fair representation. And, those founders also knew that if the new US government discriminated, those left out had no real reason to comply with the law.
Madison, Hamilton, Washington et al defined in our Constitution representation as representation no less than all people (slaves counted as three-fifths until the Lincoln Administration) because they themselves fought against a tyrannical government over what constituted fair representation. And, those founders also knew that if the new US government discriminated, those left out had no real reason to comply with the law.
4
Rural America is vastly overrepresented as it is; Wyoming has one senator for each 292,000 people, while California has one senator for every 18,900,000 people. In other words, any given person in Wyoming holds as much sway in the Senate as 65 people in California.
Even the allegedly proportional House is skewed, because we haven't added seats to the House in 102 years – even having added two states in the interim. That means the mean population represented by each member of the House has now risen to more than 740,000 (compared to 212,000 in 1913). Since each state must be represented in the House, and since we can't give fractional votes, that means one vote for every 578,000 people in Wyoming vs. one vote for every 732,000 in California, or (for instance) for every 745,000 in New Jersey.
This also distorts the Electoral College, of course, because electors are apportioned the same way House plus Senate seats are apportioned.
Even the allegedly proportional House is skewed, because we haven't added seats to the House in 102 years – even having added two states in the interim. That means the mean population represented by each member of the House has now risen to more than 740,000 (compared to 212,000 in 1913). Since each state must be represented in the House, and since we can't give fractional votes, that means one vote for every 578,000 people in Wyoming vs. one vote for every 732,000 in California, or (for instance) for every 745,000 in New Jersey.
This also distorts the Electoral College, of course, because electors are apportioned the same way House plus Senate seats are apportioned.
3
You clearly slept through US Government class in 8th grade.
The SENATE represents THE STATES. It is not based on population. By your argument, Wyoming would have zero representation and everything would be decided by 5-6 big coastal states.
The SENATE represents THE STATES. It is not based on population. By your argument, Wyoming would have zero representation and everything would be decided by 5-6 big coastal states.
This is not nearly well-enough known (because the media has various financial interests not to cover it), but extremely true and important. The current system is rigged in many ways against both democratic and Democratic representation. More votes regularly go to Democrats nationally, and Republicans pick up seats while this happens. Combined with the fact that the small rural states (which usually vote Republican) have so much more relative representation than the big states do, the fact that the ownership class (the Right) generally has more money than the labor class (the Left), and the fact that Conservatism is much easier to keep in a solid voting bloc than Liberalism (it is easier to say "no" to everything new and to point to models from the past than it is to try to reshape the world toward Progressive goals in a future that isn't known yet), it really is a wonder that Democrats are still able to ever have majorities. If it is determined that rural voters have permanently more representation than they already have now, and if a Republican becomes president in 2017, the Democratic Party is essentially dead, suddenly owning a tiny minority of governorships, a tiny minority of statehouses, none of the three branches (or either House) in Washington, and and the permanent loss of the power of their voter base.
I'm just surprised the plaintiffs didn't try to argue that the non-eligible/non-voting population should be counted at a three-fifths ratio, given the spirit of the lawsuit and the historical precedent...
5
Two of the three branches of the federal government are not elected by the people. One of the two is appointed for life by the other that's chosen by "electors"-- not legally bound in many states to vote for the candidate they're ostensibly chosen to elect. In 2000, the life appointees chose the
guy with the second highest number of popular votes to lead the country.
Still not sure why we insist on calling this construct "democracy". Less sure
about why we have to violently export this farce, calling it "exceptional".
guy with the second highest number of popular votes to lead the country.
Still not sure why we insist on calling this construct "democracy". Less sure
about why we have to violently export this farce, calling it "exceptional".
2
Remember "No Taxation without Representation"? That was a founding principle of this nation.
States can set some of the standards, according to the Constitution, in who is qualified to vote. However, despite the current campaign rhetoric, The Constitution decides who is a citizen. All citizens are to be counted in the census per the Constitutional requirement. So, we have many citizens who are not qualified to vote.
The largest group of those non-voters is children. Some states have large %'s of retirees with fewer children under 18 (FL, PA at ~20%), and thus some do not (UT,TX at 30 and 27%). Why should children not be entitled to the same proportional representation as adults, if all are citizens? In the case of TX & PA, this could result in TX losing seats in Congress for 7% or 1.7 million young citizens.
Likewise other groups including those excluded from voting based on histories of mental illness, infirmity, inability to travel to polling places, or criminal history. Or lack of a state-approved ID card.
We once counted 3/5ths of slaves for representation, yet this case might result in our not counting more than 25% of our citizens in allotting control. How is this government by the consent of the governed? This is a blatant attempt at control by disenfranchisement.
States can set some of the standards, according to the Constitution, in who is qualified to vote. However, despite the current campaign rhetoric, The Constitution decides who is a citizen. All citizens are to be counted in the census per the Constitutional requirement. So, we have many citizens who are not qualified to vote.
The largest group of those non-voters is children. Some states have large %'s of retirees with fewer children under 18 (FL, PA at ~20%), and thus some do not (UT,TX at 30 and 27%). Why should children not be entitled to the same proportional representation as adults, if all are citizens? In the case of TX & PA, this could result in TX losing seats in Congress for 7% or 1.7 million young citizens.
Likewise other groups including those excluded from voting based on histories of mental illness, infirmity, inability to travel to polling places, or criminal history. Or lack of a state-approved ID card.
We once counted 3/5ths of slaves for representation, yet this case might result in our not counting more than 25% of our citizens in allotting control. How is this government by the consent of the governed? This is a blatant attempt at control by disenfranchisement.
5
But i don't understand this argument, because people who can't vote also don't can't "consent", and nothing the court does can change that. All the current regime does is is give the voters in those districts with relatively more non citizens, children, etc. more power - it doesn't give any more consent or influence to those who are not eligible to vote.
1
We assume that parents will vote in the interests of their children. To perhaps a lesser extent, this is true of other disenfranchised groups. For example, if one candidate is thought to be better for a local industry, like agriculture or oil, the voters will support that candidate and (if the candidate wins) that will also benefit non-eligible voters, such as immigrants or disenfranchised felons, by helping that local economy.
Go listen to the speeches given by top students at high school graduations. These are citizens just turning 18 who have mostly never voted, yet more than half soon will. They were 'below the age of consent' in many respects, but that is about to change, by about 4 million citizens per year who turn 18.
Your challenge, Warbler, is that non-voters have no functional consent, but many will. Some grow up, some become citizens, and some get back their franchise after serving time. Yet plaintiffs contend that we should ignore their interests until they register.
This raises another question. If we can limit the count in this manner, could we then limit it to only counting people who actually vote? It could be argued that registered non-voters must not care and so should not be counted.
Such limitations devalue citizenship for the young, those who choose not to vote, and those those with troubled lives who currently cannot register. 73 million Americans 18 and over are currently unregistered. 35% of those who could if they so chose. They must be counted. They are our neighbors, our friends, our citizens.
Your challenge, Warbler, is that non-voters have no functional consent, but many will. Some grow up, some become citizens, and some get back their franchise after serving time. Yet plaintiffs contend that we should ignore their interests until they register.
This raises another question. If we can limit the count in this manner, could we then limit it to only counting people who actually vote? It could be argued that registered non-voters must not care and so should not be counted.
Such limitations devalue citizenship for the young, those who choose not to vote, and those those with troubled lives who currently cannot register. 73 million Americans 18 and over are currently unregistered. 35% of those who could if they so chose. They must be counted. They are our neighbors, our friends, our citizens.
2
This isn't about "one person, one vote" - it is about a mechanism to render invisible and take away rights of all who are not eligible voters - young people, recently relocated people, students. Elected representatives would take as a signal that they only represent the people who actually voted for them, ignoring their responsibility to represent all the people who happen to reside in their district. It also would be an excuse for the Republican Right Wing Majority on the Court to continue their agenda to permanently empower Republicans and make the Democratic party impotent, which began with the thoroughly unconstitutional decision Bush v Gore, continued with Citizens United and McCutcheon, and the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act through convoluted reasoning in Shelby,. It would be completely within the framework of a Majority that favors a "Unitary Executive" when their personally selected Republican President (George W. Bush) is in office. Far from an "umpire calling strikes and balls", the Republican Right Wing Majority is the most activist syndicate the court has ever had.
4
Do you mean the same Supreme Court that has on two previous occasions upheld the ACA? You must be talking about a different Supreme Court because this one is not conservative. At best they are moderate left leaning. If you are not a LEGAL citizen you should not be allowed to vote. Why in the world would we want to allow people to vote who have entered this country in violation of the immigration laws? I have NO problem in allowing convicted felons to vote. I think this felon voting law is counter the whole point of elections which is to get people in office who can make changes. NON-Citizens should have no voice in elections and Texas and Arizona are good example of why this makes sense. 10's of thousands of illegal immigrants have crossed the boarder into these states and if allowed to vote could easily outnumber legal citizens.
2
So if legal immigrants are not counted but pay taxes, is it taxation without representation?
5
Is there data on the likelihood of unauthorized residents actually responding to census questions? In other words, an estimate of the number of undocumented aliens in a district doesn't mean that number will affect the counted population that serves as a basis for apportionment -- I believe that Census isn't allowed to 'estimate' based on samples.
2
You forget that millions of Americans are employed every census as 'census takers' to knock on doors and verify by eye and intelligence the number of people living at addresses unresponsive to the mailed forms.
That was, and is, the original method of counting Americans -- and it continues.
That was, and is, the original method of counting Americans -- and it continues.
3
How would counting only eligible voters would impact felony disenfranchisement? Up to 7.5% of African Americans cannot vote due to a crazy-quilt of state laws forbidding those convicted of felonies from so doing. The ban exists, depending on the state, beyond prison and, for some, the ex-con's entire life. Moreover, ex-felons cluster in the same impoverished neighborhoods that desperately depend on resources that their numbers now bring. If those areas are made lose population artificially for political purposes, resources may be reduced due to under-representation while the need remains. The sins of our socio-economic past that conspire to criminalize too many poor people of color will multiply as hope diminishes and inequality more intractable.
Another reader wrote that our Constitution once counted enslaved blacks as three-fifths for population purposes. Slaves were actually no-fifths of a person, but only a peculiar sort of property that got counted by government although their chattel's status, despite being human, was no better than that of a pig or a cow. In a fair world, the only people who shouldn't be counted as eligible voters for apportionment should be those who have been remanded to rural prisons, disenfranchised, far from home.
Another reader wrote that our Constitution once counted enslaved blacks as three-fifths for population purposes. Slaves were actually no-fifths of a person, but only a peculiar sort of property that got counted by government although their chattel's status, despite being human, was no better than that of a pig or a cow. In a fair world, the only people who shouldn't be counted as eligible voters for apportionment should be those who have been remanded to rural prisons, disenfranchised, far from home.
3
I thought the Republican Party's goal was to reduce the number of eligible voters who were most likely to vote for Democratic candidates, not mess with the Constitution - they are conservatives who worship the Constitution aren't they?
2
They only care about one-half of one amendment to the Constitution.
4
I have lost my confidence in the Supreme Court's objectivity. I "strongly believe" that Supreme Court judges should also be term limited. Mr. Clements and Mr. Scalia are basing their opinions on their personal convictions rather than what is best for the nation and the people it represents. I don't expect any enlightenment for them, Just some " strong beliefs" !
4
Now that we don't have to select people to ride a horse to Philadelphia to vote on our behalf, we should try the world's first computer driven democracy. Real one person one vote.
4
Please forgive my ignorance, but how does one person / oe vote / one law for all states mean that an "attempt to narrow the influence of minorities and to enhance the votes attempt to narrow the influence of minorities and to enhance the votes for Republicans. for Republicans."
Does this mean non citizens = illegal peoples should be counted to enhance a member of the House of Representatives power? Did the illegal peoples vote you into office - no they didn't so they should not be included in the power/ money structure of your constituency.
This is not a race / minority / or political issue, this is an issue of legal US citizens' voting for their representatives to speak for them in our REPUBLIC / democratic process.
Does this mean non citizens = illegal peoples should be counted to enhance a member of the House of Representatives power? Did the illegal peoples vote you into office - no they didn't so they should not be included in the power/ money structure of your constituency.
This is not a race / minority / or political issue, this is an issue of legal US citizens' voting for their representatives to speak for them in our REPUBLIC / democratic process.
3
It is registered voters that should count. Counting those who are present but ineligible to vote dilutes the vote of those who are illegible. That makes no sense. Counting those who are ineligible to vote themselves is like giving them some tag-along vote by proxy. There presence should have no effect upon the voting of those who are entitled to vote and the consequences of the outcome of that vote.
In corporations, stockholders have voting rights. It is the votes of stockholders that are compared to determine which side has won. Others present in the room at the time of the vote are not counted, just as the number customers and users of the corporation's products or services is not counted and makes no difference in any way.
In corporations, stockholders have voting rights. It is the votes of stockholders that are compared to determine which side has won. Others present in the room at the time of the vote are not counted, just as the number customers and users of the corporation's products or services is not counted and makes no difference in any way.
4
Minors definitely need to count. They can't vote.
Everybody residing in the country is subject to its laws: citizen, green card holder, illegal resident, visitor, or whatever. Every permanent resident should be counted with respect to how the laws are made. As another commenter pointed out, government disbursements are often linked to population - do we use a different count for what region gets money compared to the count that determined the amount of the money?
Personally, I believe that all legal residents of a district should be allowed to vote, citizen or not, but that's a question for another article or column.
Personally, I believe that all legal residents of a district should be allowed to vote, citizen or not, but that's a question for another article or column.
John Parken, corporations are exemplars of democracy? Without counting the ways that this is a bizarre notion, let me just name one. When shareholders vote for a board of directors, they have the opportunity to either vote for withhold their vote - no "against". Apart from being only advisory, these votes make it possible for a director to be "elected" with just one vote, no matter how many are withheld.
The American political structure and system cannot evolve itself from the deep hole of Dualism until Justice is not served. “Justice”, these seven letters have more power than the divine affirmations of the freedom of the press. We Americans have the newest civilization with a good governing system of democracy but are far from understating the proper meaning of Justice. The meaning is divine sorcery in the hands of the judges from the Superior Court of each city to the Supreme Court of Washington DC. In our language we call it human fealty of Kalam.The People Party of CONNECTICUT Supreme Court Case we argued that 14th Ammedment shall change according to the Divine Affirmations of Human Faith.
Why not just go whole hog and count only eligible voters who watch cable news?
I'm confused. If "the Constitution requires 'counting the whole number of persons in each state' for apportioning seats in the House of Representatives among the states,'" are we then just debating procedure for state-level elections?
I'm confused. If "the Constitution requires 'counting the whole number of persons in each state' for apportioning seats in the House of Representatives among the states,'" are we then just debating procedure for state-level elections?
2
Let's go back to the intent of the Founding Fathers. The roght to vote must be confined to white, male, property owners.
God bless America!
God bless America!
1
If the court decision doesn't go the plaintiff's way watch for more Republican efforts to cut the budget of the Census Bureau. When they realized that the Census Department was making an honest effort to include everyone in the 2010 Census, they piled on to limit outreach to minority communities and poor, difficult to reach communities. Recently they have attacked the American Community Survey (ACS), an inter-decile continuous survey that allows the Bureau to track demographic changes on a continuing basis.
As the Republicans go on climate change and on gun violence, they go on the census: when the facts are inconvenient for your view of the world, ignore the existing facts and suppress the collection of more information.
As the Republicans go on climate change and on gun violence, they go on the census: when the facts are inconvenient for your view of the world, ignore the existing facts and suppress the collection of more information.
4
As the article points out, the Constitution requires “counting the whole number of persons in each state” for apportioning seats in the House of Representatives among the states, but this is not the issue in Evenwel v. Abbott. The issue is whether Texas should count only eligible voters in determining the size and shape of its congressional voting districts. Regardless of the outcome, Texas would apportioned the same number of seats in the House of Representatives because these numbers are based on each state’s total population.
2
it is clear that the census must be used to apportion congress so if we really attempted to count only registered voters, the census would need to be utterly redesigned. the court would do well to leave well enough alone.
3
If you think about it, of course it must be whole persons, not eligible voters that are counted. It is the number of people AFFECTED by the vote that should be factored into questions of proportionality.
If it is instead only eligible voters, 5 such voters in Texas could put into federal power a person who makes decisions that affect 500 non-voters in New York. That isn't PROPORTIONAL representation! That's quite the opposite. Indeed, it's positively feudal, with a privileged class lording it over the more numerous "serfs".
And before Republicans leap on this and make it about undocumented immigrants, let's not forget the huge number of other people in this country, 100% legally, who are not (yet) franchised. They cannot simply be discounted.
If it is instead only eligible voters, 5 such voters in Texas could put into federal power a person who makes decisions that affect 500 non-voters in New York. That isn't PROPORTIONAL representation! That's quite the opposite. Indeed, it's positively feudal, with a privileged class lording it over the more numerous "serfs".
And before Republicans leap on this and make it about undocumented immigrants, let's not forget the huge number of other people in this country, 100% legally, who are not (yet) franchised. They cannot simply be discounted.
2
The "Project on Fair Representation" is the happy-sounding front for conservative activist Edward Blum, who was also behind the suit that the Roberts Court used to overturn the Voting Rights Act. See https://newrepublic.com/article/124955/next-supreme-court-challenge-equa.... His goal is nothing less than a permanent and unassailable Republican majority dressed up as representative democracy.
By the way, is it not enough that states like Alaska and Wyoming, with a population of roughly 600,000 people, have the same power in the United States Senate as New York and California? The playing field is already ridiculously tilted toward the interests of rural whites.
By the way, is it not enough that states like Alaska and Wyoming, with a population of roughly 600,000 people, have the same power in the United States Senate as New York and California? The playing field is already ridiculously tilted toward the interests of rural whites.
8
Huh?
"Instead, the Supreme Court should rule that all House members should be voted at-large and the representation divided proportionally."
Not that that's the issue here, of course, but let's suppose it is: Where, exactly, would the Supreme Court find authority to do that? Just make it up, or what?
"Instead, the Supreme Court should rule that all House members should be voted at-large and the representation divided proportionally."
Not that that's the issue here, of course, but let's suppose it is: Where, exactly, would the Supreme Court find authority to do that? Just make it up, or what?
4
@MyTwoCents: in every such forum, 2-3 lefties ask that the SENATE be disbanded -- because it represents the States. Never mind it is the very foundation of the Constitution and our government! Just "do away with it", so the lefties have all the power.
I don't mean to burst your bubble but if the Senate were "done away with" tomorrow, the overwhelming Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives would wield absolute legislative power; not quite sure how you see that as "lefties have all the power"
It is ONE of the foundations, Concerned. The Constitution is about dividing, not centralizing power. The Senate itself is not the problem; it's the anti-democratic rules the Senate has established on its own that create our current gridlock.
Ever since our government and our representation was put up for sale under Citizens United, are any of these lesser technicalities like numbers of individual "votes" even relevant anymore? It seems to me that SCOTUS has pretty much already decided who runs the show these days.
7
I realize this is somewhat off-topic, but as it's an issue that's never discussed, I thought this would be an appropriate venue: it is a disgrace that prisoners and convicted felons cannot vote. As Bryan Stevenson so often says, a person is more than one thing. A person who has murdered is more than a murderer, and a person who has stolen is more than a thief.
It is outrageous that a person with a life sentence has no opportunity to vote against a candidate who accepts money from private prison lobbyists. It is embarrassing that a felon who cannot find a job due to his/her criminal status (in some cases innocent of the crime for which they were convicted) has no say in the representatives who control the economy. The institution of voting was meant to enfranchise the most vulnerable among us. We cannot forget about people on the bottom rung of society, or we will have sunk to the level of the human rights abusers we've traditionally fought against.
That is all.
It is outrageous that a person with a life sentence has no opportunity to vote against a candidate who accepts money from private prison lobbyists. It is embarrassing that a felon who cannot find a job due to his/her criminal status (in some cases innocent of the crime for which they were convicted) has no say in the representatives who control the economy. The institution of voting was meant to enfranchise the most vulnerable among us. We cannot forget about people on the bottom rung of society, or we will have sunk to the level of the human rights abusers we've traditionally fought against.
That is all.
16
This Supreme Court has a record of ruling in favor of anything that increases the political power of the right wing.
These rulings include allowing corporate money to flood the system, to restrict voting rights through Voter ID laws and to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act.
As with many other challenges brought by the right, this one is masked in the mantle of fairness. But, it has the problem of running against history and language.
How can a district measure eligible voters?
If you choose not to, or are prevented from registering, are you an eligible voter?
Are children counted?
Are so-called Anchor Babies counted?
This case affords them another opportunity to diminish the power of the Democratic Party.
I suspect that they will take it, but there remains a part of me that is hopeful that even this Supreme Court is not that callous and partisan.
My take, 2-1 odds that they support this suit.
These rulings include allowing corporate money to flood the system, to restrict voting rights through Voter ID laws and to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act.
As with many other challenges brought by the right, this one is masked in the mantle of fairness. But, it has the problem of running against history and language.
How can a district measure eligible voters?
If you choose not to, or are prevented from registering, are you an eligible voter?
Are children counted?
Are so-called Anchor Babies counted?
This case affords them another opportunity to diminish the power of the Democratic Party.
I suspect that they will take it, but there remains a part of me that is hopeful that even this Supreme Court is not that callous and partisan.
My take, 2-1 odds that they support this suit.
2
I understand that this issue is complicated, but doesn't the fact that the Constitution originally contained a three-fifths rule for counting slaves for the purpose of apportioning representation in the House of Representatives, even though slaves couldn't, of course, vote, clearly indicate the the original intent of the Constitution was representation should be apportioned on the basis of population rather than on the basis of eligible voters?
4
It's relevant to a degree, but here is the problem: the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions in the mid-20th century that laid forth the one person - one vote rule. This was based on the equal protection clause of section 1 of the 14th Amendment. These decisions invalidated a number of wide spread practices that dated back to at least the founding of the nation, such as state upper houses (senates) where each county in a state would have an equal number of senators. As such, this current case has to be viewed under the lens of the 14th Amendment and not necessarily the original unaltered constitution.
1
I can hardly imagine the chaos it would cause if the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Given how activist the Roberts court has been its a scary thought. It leads one to ask, since corporations are now people, whether corporations will be given voting rights and how those votes would be apportioned.
13
Once again, we have a case brought by white conservatives trying to hold back the tide of a demographic shift in this country's population. Once again, we have a case brought by white conservatives segregating themselves from the non-white population concentrated in urban areas as though we are not "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
2
The fundamental question is whether elected representatives are to represent all of the people in their districts or just the people who elected them. It will be a sad day, indeed, and a serious blow to what's left of democracy in America, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the latter.
The Constitution clearly refers to "people," not voters, and the fact that the Founders included a provision for counting slaves who could not vote indicates how they felt about the matter. Indeed, at the time the Constitution was adopted, had "eligible voters" been the standard, both women and free white men who did not own property would have been excluded from the count. The conservatives on the court who insist on basing their rulings on the original intent of the Founders should take these points into consideration.
The Constitution clearly refers to "people," not voters, and the fact that the Founders included a provision for counting slaves who could not vote indicates how they felt about the matter. Indeed, at the time the Constitution was adopted, had "eligible voters" been the standard, both women and free white men who did not own property would have been excluded from the count. The conservatives on the court who insist on basing their rulings on the original intent of the Founders should take these points into consideration.
7
Republicans already govern that way!
1
I note that the Framers wrote the Three-Fifths Rule, setting forth a basis for counting non-voters.
4
one person one vote will defeat money interests that inflate
privilege, and return a majority so we all share America.
privilege, and return a majority so we all share America.
2
The Three-Fifths Compromise, found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, does not appear to leave much latitude on this issue:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
If non-voters were not supposed to be counted in apportioning representation, then this provision made no sense at all. And "democracy" was given little or no substance.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
If non-voters were not supposed to be counted in apportioning representation, then this provision made no sense at all. And "democracy" was given little or no substance.
1
Will OUR Supreme Court of the United States of America take one more step to push America into a radicalized christian nation by upholding this lawsuit? Six of the nine Justices are catholic whose leaders truly believe they are "masters of the universe and are the right hand of god. The five male catholic corporate justices have done more to destroy democracy in America than one could ever have imagined. Chief justice Roberts was recruited for the Bush, Jr. legal team and shoved onto the supreme court by none other than Ted Cruz. Not a glowing reference for reason to prevail. Perhaps MY higher power will intervene and knock some sense into their heads. Time will tell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_U...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_U...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz
1
The rule that population is determined by the census is so fundamental to our Constitution that we today find it shocking to our sense of fairness to recall that there was for decades a practice of counting a black resident as only 3/5 of a person. For a century and half, that aberration has been dead and buried, and is considered unspeakable.
Overruling the census as the basis for representation would inflict massive legal havoc on numerous aspects of government, and that power would be as open to abuse by the left as by the right. For example, illegal aliens, aliens, the retired, the unemployed, would all become fair game for the 3/5 treatment -- rendered locally by anonymous individuals affiliated with political parties.
When a rule is so fundamental to our democracy, it should not be tampered with unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason.
Overruling the census as the basis for representation would inflict massive legal havoc on numerous aspects of government, and that power would be as open to abuse by the left as by the right. For example, illegal aliens, aliens, the retired, the unemployed, would all become fair game for the 3/5 treatment -- rendered locally by anonymous individuals affiliated with political parties.
When a rule is so fundamental to our democracy, it should not be tampered with unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason.
80
The Three-Fifths Compromise (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3) is part of the Constitution. It did not count blacks as 3/5 of a person. Free blacks counted the same as free whites. However, it stipulated that only three-fifths of a state’s population of non-free persons—including white indentured servants—would count for the purpose of allocating electoral voted and seats in the House of Representatives. The purpose of the compromise was to reduce the representation of Southern states in the House of Representatives. It does establish a precedent for excluding residents who cannot vote when determining proportional representation,
4
If the Supreme Court comes down on the side of one eligible voter, one vote, the good news is that Democrats will work hard to ensure more people are eligible to vote. including felons who have completed their probation (the felon, no vote rule never made any sense--in fact felons should be heard from more not less, to ensure the criminal justice is working and working fairly--and to encourage people to speak through the political process rather than through other more antisocial avenues).
15
Since The Donald has already told us he will depot all illegals, there really is no need to hear this case.
2
Frightening! Something like this could push the US over into a right-wing totalitarian state.
4
The constitution says that representation is based on counting the whole number of people in a state and apportioning seats in the house of representation on that bases. /therefore if you are only going to count eligible voters, you would have to also change how many representatives each state gets which would favor the North over the South.
54
The counting of "non" citizens is in the constitution. The Slaves weren't citizens, but the constitution included them in the count to determine congressional districts. Through out our history the census counts all persons, it does not make a distinction between them. But most important, areas with large families would be under represented, while rich people in areas where I grew up, with few or no children would be over represented. Resources then flow to the rich, and away from the poor. This is a wholy unconstitutional debate.
166
Excellent point about this history of counting slaves.
1
Most native americans prior to 1900 were not counted in the census.
1
In case you didn't know the difference, slaves didn't come here voluntarily, they were captured and shipped here to be sold just like cattle, etc. To equate them with illegal aliens (who forced their way over the borders voluntarily) is reprehensible. They suffered for many, many years before being emancipated and having the right to vote. Today's illegal alien just wanders over the border and demands his/her "rights."'
I remember a comedy skit where a middle eastern hotel worker tells Whoopi Goldberg that her people were welcome in America whilst his were not. Whoopi's response was something to the effect of, "Right! They sent amazing ships for us, and they even had jobs for us when we arrived!" Couldn't have said it better myself.
I remember a comedy skit where a middle eastern hotel worker tells Whoopi Goldberg that her people were welcome in America whilst his were not. Whoopi's response was something to the effect of, "Right! They sent amazing ships for us, and they even had jobs for us when we arrived!" Couldn't have said it better myself.
If you do not count everybody, then you are asking for problems.
It is ignoring reality. It may work well in a political campaign, but is not a practical way to govern.
Governing requires being practical, not strict black or white adherence to philosophies.
It is ignoring reality. It may work well in a political campaign, but is not a practical way to govern.
Governing requires being practical, not strict black or white adherence to philosophies.
6
The Constitution says: “We the people”, not “We the people who the Republicans deem acceptable”
217
This is not in the Constitution, but in the Intro to the Constitution, known as the Preamble. It doesn't apply to anyone that came in illegally after the Constitution was ratified.
Why should any Party be able to decide who is worthy and who is not?
But what did the writers of the Constitution mean when they wrote that phrase? They only included male property owners.
Certainly, there is some political motivation involved, but what do we do that is without such motivation? There is however a serious question here, and if plaintiffs win, the Democrats would move to change the requirements for voting eligibility.
10
How are the Democrats going to change voter eligibility? They can move all they want.
Undocumented immigrants are vitally ingrained into the social and political fabric of this country. Without a doubt, the Republican Party has no interest whatsoever in removing them or legalizing their status. They are the perfectly exploitable, disenfranchised, punching bag. The least we can do is count them as whole persons under the Constitution. And what about our children? Don't they count?
71
huh? do you ever read your thoughts before pressing, "submit?"
6
"ILLEGAL" immigrants. Not "undocumented." They broke the law to come here. That seems to be meaningless to those whose only goal is raw political power.
1
Martha,
Please read the constitution before making these statement what you think should be happening!
Please read the constitution before making these statement what you think should be happening!
This will not end well.
2
I don't trust this court. Principles at ever level have been severely compromised in this country. The economic and political inequalities brought forward by the Republican party, will be reinforced by this court. I'm hoping/praying for change this coming election.
4
So if the New Republican system determines that a person is eligible to vote, will that person still be required to register?
4
It's kind of appalling that this issue is suddenly up for grabs again. The constitutional language--and centuries of tradition and common acceptance of the meaning of who is represented by our leaders--is pretty clear. It's body count not actual voters.
And well it should be: there are many reasons why an eligible voter might not make it to the polls--sickness, infirmity, called suddenly out of the district on business, and of course the biggest cause of nonvoting: the very open and brazen attempts by states to shorten voting hours and institute hard to implement voter ID requirements in areas with large minority populations.
It seems that the GOP (it's always the GOP trying to limit voting, now, isn't it) is fixated on changing the rules for their own benefit. But if we have truly representative government, why wouldn't it be one man/woman, one vote? Elected leaders must represent all residents, including those who can't or don't vote, when casting votes for their districts. Isn't that the meaning of democracy? (forget about the electoral college, which negates that in general presidential elections).
I have little faith in this SCOTUS to do the right thing, given the conservative majority and their track record of voting according to their political, not judicial , beliefs. I can just hear Scalia's acerbic questioning here as if the more he protests a point, the more he's right.
Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised--but I doubt it.
And well it should be: there are many reasons why an eligible voter might not make it to the polls--sickness, infirmity, called suddenly out of the district on business, and of course the biggest cause of nonvoting: the very open and brazen attempts by states to shorten voting hours and institute hard to implement voter ID requirements in areas with large minority populations.
It seems that the GOP (it's always the GOP trying to limit voting, now, isn't it) is fixated on changing the rules for their own benefit. But if we have truly representative government, why wouldn't it be one man/woman, one vote? Elected leaders must represent all residents, including those who can't or don't vote, when casting votes for their districts. Isn't that the meaning of democracy? (forget about the electoral college, which negates that in general presidential elections).
I have little faith in this SCOTUS to do the right thing, given the conservative majority and their track record of voting according to their political, not judicial , beliefs. I can just hear Scalia's acerbic questioning here as if the more he protests a point, the more he's right.
Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised--but I doubt it.
15
Perhaps you should reread the issue, it is not whether people actually voted but whether they are eligible voters. Again, a liberal smokescreen to defend what is hoped to be a first step to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.
4
@Skeptic: what a stretch and overreach. Eligible voters can still disallow children under the age of 18. Aren't they allowed to be represented? The constitution was pretty clear in defining it as headcount, not voters. Because back in the day, only male landowners could vote, but their slaves sure counted, so what was that if not increased headcount (at least 3/5 heads).
Until your last sentence I never ever would have linked this issue of representation to amnesty. I have to say, the right is certainly fixated on their issues.
Until your last sentence I never ever would have linked this issue of representation to amnesty. I have to say, the right is certainly fixated on their issues.
4
It is frustrating to a degree to see a matter the Supreme Court has decided to hear get mindlessly politicized reporting instead of substantive. This "story"does little more than create the usual Republican/Democrat divide instead of setting forth the arguments. I, for one, am baffled that non-citizens - and particularly illegal immigrants are currently counted.
7
Hmm, taxation without representation? Lots of people pay taxes, and may receive services, but may not be eligible voters. How does that factor in?
13
As you say, they receive services, but as non-citizens, IMO, they ought not to be able to vote which means nonAmericans can affect our lives.
3
There's no correlation between paying taxes and the right to vote. Tourists pay sales taxes, but can't vote. Teenagers pay taxes, but can't vote.
7
@ Shenonymous: Children born in the US are "non-citizens" in your view? Children born in the US cannot vote until they are 18, but that doesn't mean that their interests should not be represented. The same is true for "immigrants," as the articles points out, "here legally who are not citizens." These individuals, of course, cannot vote; changing that situation is not before the Court, so why are you bringing it up? The immigrants, though, do pay taxes, so their interests, too, should be represented.
Several people favoring the appellants have commented that they don't like the idea that illegals could be counted. How do they feel about children? I would guess that the largest group that would be affected would be minor children. They are certainly not eligible voters but are entitled to equal representation are they not?
10
For Justice Scalia and his caddy it should be "one gun, one vote." Their dissenting opinion on the latest gun rights case establishes once and for all that that they're on the NRA payroll.
5
Actually, we may well be the greatest representative society in history, but really only for our written constitution and our checks and balances that normally protect minority views from a tyranny of the majority. But you look at other societies, such as Britain's, and they're far closer to true "democracies" than ours, with our Electoral College and our U.S. Senate.
For some reason, the left in particular here has become entranced with the word "democracy", when that wasn't at all what we set out to achieve, and in fact did.
As a Republican, I have no problem counting everyone, as doing so we now have an undivided Republican Congress, a huge majority of Republican statehouses and a majority of governorships. The notion of gerrymandering is absurd -- you can't gerrymander the U.S. Senate or a state governorship. Beyond that, the left's problem is that they're too concentrated in our dense urban venues to be effective overall -- far more so than they need to be to elect Democrats for those cities; yet they're too thin on the ground to compete effectively with Republicans just about anywhere else. THAT'S what's given us such a dominance electorally. Frankly, I don't see that changing, at least while I'm still vertical.
For some reason, the left in particular here has become entranced with the word "democracy", when that wasn't at all what we set out to achieve, and in fact did.
As a Republican, I have no problem counting everyone, as doing so we now have an undivided Republican Congress, a huge majority of Republican statehouses and a majority of governorships. The notion of gerrymandering is absurd -- you can't gerrymander the U.S. Senate or a state governorship. Beyond that, the left's problem is that they're too concentrated in our dense urban venues to be effective overall -- far more so than they need to be to elect Democrats for those cities; yet they're too thin on the ground to compete effectively with Republicans just about anywhere else. THAT'S what's given us such a dominance electorally. Frankly, I don't see that changing, at least while I'm still vertical.
6
Not so dominant in the last 2 presidential elections. And the Senate absurdly over represents low population, rural states.
5
Richard, your arguments ring false on many levels: gerrymandering at the state and federal level in Republican led states has really gone out of control. So Republican leadership, and political positions, are totally protected even though they may lose the overall popular vote when all votes are totaled (example: there were more votes cast for Democrats in the last few Congressional cycles and yet Republicans have the elected majorities . . . here is an article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../senate-democrats-). This continues to be the main tactic of the Republican party as their policies are losing the demographic contest for new voters in key categories and their numbers slide in nationwide polls.
1
@Bruce: ONLY because the current POTUS is black -- and received unprecedented black votes (100% in many districts!) -- plus support from other minorities AND all lefty-liberals -- and that no third party candidate ran in those years.
It won't be the same next year, or in 2020.
It won't be the same next year, or in 2020.
1
Do tourist count? What if the tourist overstay their visa? Do refugees like those for hurricane Katrina falsely inflate Texas' electoral value if they are living in Texas the day of the census? Do occupying armies count? If a refugee turns out to be an Islamic terrorist, does their status change from refugee to occupying army? Do illegal immigrants count? Are your responses to the above and other scenarios consistent and logical?
10
It appears that the only sacred part of the Constitution for the Right wing is the 2nd amendment. Everything else is subject to radical, extremist revisionism, and all driven by fear. Well, mostly fear, and the inability to accept the fact that the core of the Republican party, middle aged white men, is becoming smaller and less relevant as each year passes.
68
The Constitution dictates how many immigrants we are to accept, annually, but the left likes to ignore that one too. Everyone has their own interpretation, thus why law schools teach constitutional law. nice stereotyping and generalization, though. PS independents like me, tired of paying for everyone else's stuff, is what gave Republicans an undivided congress, NOT middle-aged white men...
4
This case is yet another reminder of what the supreme court will become if our next president is a republican and permanently solidifies a radical right block for the next generation. There will be no O'Connor/Kennedy swing vote dynamic, but instead a powerless progressive minority on the bench whose only role will be to write dissents.
15
We already have a system, the Senate, that disenfranchises the cities over rural areas. Large population states only have the same representation as states like Nevada or Wyoming with hardly anyone there. Perhaps we should challenge that Constitutional inequality if this one goes against cities. We don't need to disenfranchise cities any more than we already have done. Those old rural white folks think they should run everything. They only care about themselves. This country will fall apart if they get more control.
19
In the majority opinion of the 1998 7th Circuit federal case “Barnett vs. City of Chicago,” Judge Richard A. Posner ruled, “We think that citizen voting-age population is the basis for determining equality of voting power that best comports with the policy of the (Voting Rights) statute. … The dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if non-citizens are allowed to vote either directly or by the conferral of additional voting power on citizens believed to have a community of interest with the non-citizens.”
3
If we had a border that is enforced this wouldn't be an issue. My guess is this group from Texas didn't like that all the illegals were being counted. I can see there point and that seems reasonable to me. But I am not John Roberts and he has become the swing vote in this court now.
3
So if only "registered" voters are to be counted, will the allotment of congressional districts be proportional? What would happen if a state like Oregon registered everyone in the state and a state like North Carolina continues to restrict voter registration, will NC loose congressional districts to Oregon?
5
The Constitution is clear on this issue. The number of House members a state gets is directly proportional to that states population. How the state chooses to draw its Congressional districts is what comes into play here. Is it permissible to draw the districts based on eligible voters? That is what is at issue here.
Conservatives and indeed Republcians ahve long wanted to suppress the votes of the poor, minorities and others not aligned with them, they court rural areas which are primarily, empty land. Roberts has made it one o his missions to get rid of the VRA and all other provisions that help African Americans and non white citizens; the five Republcians on the court are in total agreement with their corporate and white supremacy party.
Remember the three fifths rule that counted slaves but gave them no rights? Republicans are taking us back in time. Florida is pacing prisons in the district of one of the African Americans voting district, and prisoners have no voting rights but count as persons.
http://newsone.com/3196662/gop-redistricting-plot-to-unseat-rep-corrine-...
Remember the three fifths rule that counted slaves but gave them no rights? Republicans are taking us back in time. Florida is pacing prisons in the district of one of the African Americans voting district, and prisoners have no voting rights but count as persons.
http://newsone.com/3196662/gop-redistricting-plot-to-unseat-rep-corrine-...
2
In view of the Citizens United decision, how many votes do Corporations get?
3
If children are not counted, then the votes of those who are responsible for children no longer have the power to protect children.
2
The constitution says, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which
may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to
Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. " It doesn't mention eligible or registered voters at all. The census included slaves and they were not eligible to vote. There may be a legitimate question regarding counting prisoners at the prison site or their anticipated home when released.
may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to
Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. " It doesn't mention eligible or registered voters at all. The census included slaves and they were not eligible to vote. There may be a legitimate question regarding counting prisoners at the prison site or their anticipated home when released.
7
This is just another Republican scam to disenfranchise representation in more urban areas which generally lean Democratic. They know their voter base is getting smaller so like the Voter ID laws and gerrymandering, this is yet another ploy to retain the power they really have no right to have.
The next thing will be a religious test barring all Muslims from voting.....introduced by the deranged Donald Trump.
The next thing will be a religious test barring all Muslims from voting.....introduced by the deranged Donald Trump.
38
Didn't many of the Southern states benefit from the provision in the Constitution counting 3/5 of a slave in detrmining representation?
6
I believe it was put there for that very reason; so that the Southern states would sign the document.
7
actually it was a compromise between the north which didn't want to count slaves at all and the south which wanted them to be fully counted.
1
People here illegally should not be counted as part of the American fabric. Be it social or political.
Allowing their presence to have an impact on what citizens claim as rights, dilutes these same rights and makes a mockery of what it means to be American.
Allowing their presence to have an impact on what citizens claim as rights, dilutes these same rights and makes a mockery of what it means to be American.
61
How about minor children? They are not eligible to vote. A win by the appellants would eliminate counting them as well. There are far more children than there are illegal aliens.
6
It is mockery of the US Constitution to argue against its plain language -- all persons are to be counted.
That's what it says. Mr. L, if you don't like it, take it up with Mr. Madison and Mr. Hamilton, or, propose and win ratification of an amendment striking out the words from our sacred Constitution that defines American representative government as representing all people within the United States.
Your third choice, of course, is to relocate to another nation which has a representative government which only represents those people recognized by the government -- these are typically understood to by tyrannical states.
That's what it says. Mr. L, if you don't like it, take it up with Mr. Madison and Mr. Hamilton, or, propose and win ratification of an amendment striking out the words from our sacred Constitution that defines American representative government as representing all people within the United States.
Your third choice, of course, is to relocate to another nation which has a representative government which only represents those people recognized by the government -- these are typically understood to by tyrannical states.
5
Counting undocumented immigrants has no effect on the "Rights" of citizens .The voters still determine who and what policies are enacted. A democracy functions well when each person within the geographic boundary is acknowledged to exist by an identity card with legal status .
The fact that the Supreme Court took the case (given the quality and ideology of the current court) is frightening. The constitution clearly demands counting of the whole population when referring to the House. Were we to only somehow count eligible voters then a new system emerges. One in which minorities such as children (who don't vote) are completely disenfranchised in the district. What if a district has many young immigrant families with children but eligible voters are mostly elderly and have no interest in schools or pediatric health care? Furthermore, most of the US in fact lives in urban areas, not in rural areas and figuring out how to address the issues of where most of the people live is critical and often not shared by rural populations. Once again an angry minority is attempting to over ride democratic principles and create rule based on their particular ideology.
37
If those "immigrant families" are illegal -- and I assume they are -- then they have no rights, period. They should be deported back to their native homeland, along with all children (*the anchor babies can return, but not before their 18th birthdays).
It is well past time for a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to vote. For a country that prides itself on being the world's greatest democracy (and lords it over everyone else), our actual performance is pathetic.
19
The United States is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. That in itself makes a big difference.
7
Less of a difference than you think, Vance! In a pure democracy, everyone votes on everything. "Republic" just means that rulership is representative or non-hereditary. How the ruler(s) or representatives are chosen is up to each republic, and may change with time.
In the Founders's day, few people had the franchise and Senators were appointed, so "constitutional republic" was accurate.
However, since we've expanded the franchise (on paper anyway) to all citizens and our Senators are now elected, we now have a democratic republic, or if you prefer, a representative democracy.
In the Founders's day, few people had the franchise and Senators were appointed, so "constitutional republic" was accurate.
However, since we've expanded the franchise (on paper anyway) to all citizens and our Senators are now elected, we now have a democratic republic, or if you prefer, a representative democracy.
The Constitution required “counting the whole number of persons in each state” for apportioning seats in the House of Representatives among the states, but the Constitution also contained the Three-Fifths Compromise reached during 1787 Constitutional Convention. Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 specified only three-fifths of each state’s population of slaves, indentured servants and Native Americans would be counted for the purpose of allocating electoral votes and number of seats in the House of Representatives. So, the Constitution did not wholly embrace the “One Person/One Vote” principle. It distinguished free persons who were allowed to vote from non-free persons who were not allowed to vote as well as from Native Americans, who were not allowed to vote because they were not citizens. So, the precedent for not counting people who are not allowed to vote is embedded in the Constitution. The 13th Amendment and the Indian Citizenship Act changed the voting status of slaves, indentured servants and Native Americans, but did not negate the principle of distinguishing people allowed to vote from people not allowed to vote in determining proportional representation.
5
Yes, please please have a Republican candidate stand up for counting an immigrant as 3/5 of a person!
2
OK so under this concept I'd argue we give illegal immigrants, children, eligible voters who do not vote (which includes many middle class) and anyone else not registered 3/5ths of a person for purposes of counting. This could flip to a full "person" if they become citizens, reach the age 18, register to vote etc. Is this really where we want to go?? I live in a very rural area with 1500 folk in my town. I freely admit that many of our issues are simply not relevant to Boston. The reality is most of the state lives there not here. Should my wishes block the majority?
1
The current right-wing composition of the Court it is quite possible that instead of weighing the pros and cons of giving rural areas a political power that is contrary to the interests of the country, its extreme members would vote precisely to transform the political scenario in favor of right-wing extremism. Rurals, by definition, are not the best-read or best informed electorate. Just look at their inclination for Trump.
7
I would be interested in knowing what data source you relied upon to assert that Trump's fans are rurally located. He seems to draw large crowds in cities, too.
The underlying assumption appears to be that rural residents are uneducated while urban residents are well educated. Having lived in both rural and urban areas, I am not so sure that the situation is as clear as this assumption would suggest.
The underlying assumption appears to be that rural residents are uneducated while urban residents are well educated. Having lived in both rural and urban areas, I am not so sure that the situation is as clear as this assumption would suggest.
3
I think this is too broad a brush. Not all rurals are ignorant "by definition."
2
Which cities, Nowhere, Iowa, or perhaps in Boonies, Nebraska?
While it may be true in Texas that apportionment on registered voters would help Republicans, closer to home here in New York if this rule were applied the fragile Republican situation in the state senate would implode into irrelevance.
In New York prisoners are ruled to reside in the district of their prison, and they can't vote. New York's penchant for building upstate prisons far from the population centers that most of the prisoners come from not only provides jobs for these rural Republican-majority; it provides legislative power in both houses.
In New York prisoners are ruled to reside in the district of their prison, and they can't vote. New York's penchant for building upstate prisons far from the population centers that most of the prisoners come from not only provides jobs for these rural Republican-majority; it provides legislative power in both houses.
5
That's why I think this is fair. It doesn't benefit any one group. It simply eliminates counting H1Bs and illegal aliens for purposes of voting.
The present Supreme Court may well decide to give us one dollar, one vote! Let's just count a person's assets and apportion the vote accordingly.
5
And will we now need to count the number of corporations in the population? After all, they are people according to this SCOTUS.
1
Over the past 10 years this country has been infected by a virus that makes those afflicted mean-spirited, unjust, ignorant, fearful and unable to intellectually examine problems that have any nuance. It appears to primarily affect the amygdala and is spread by a canine called FOX PACs. It started in the brains of SCOTUS members Scalia and Thomas but has rapidly spread to many elected officials in both the local and national level. Conservatives, religious extremists, the NRA, climate change deniers, and hedge fund executives seem to be most at risk for being infected by the virus. A new and more virulent "Trump-Cruz" strain has been detected. If we do not find a cure soon, we are in danger of becoming the walking dead.. There is some hope for a vaccine being developed by Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton agrees to be vaccinated after she sees how it affects Bernie.
14
Would not surprise me if this court came up with an opinion that gives one vote to all eligible voters and five votes if you make over $150, 000 --- seems fair.
4
Why bother taking this case up? The corporatist conservatives will make sure voter suppression is upheld 5 to 4. When you can predict how each justice will rule even before the case is heard, it's time to rethink the Supreme Court's relevancy.
6
And where is the standing? I don't get it, cases like this have been rejected in the past. SCOTUS makes up its rules as it goes along
Imagine if this law was in effect prior to the voting rights act of 1965, would we still have tests for certain citizens of the United States to vote?
Disaffected voters who believe the system is rigged or who are marginalized turn to lawlessness and violence when their rights are taken away.
The SCOTUS should end this charade and vote unanimously in favor of Representative Democracy. We are all citizens of the United States not just those eligible to vote. We are the people. Perhaps you recall the words of Abraham Lincoln when he said:
"Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth."
We lose this principle, we lose the true meaning of citizenship.
Disaffected voters who believe the system is rigged or who are marginalized turn to lawlessness and violence when their rights are taken away.
The SCOTUS should end this charade and vote unanimously in favor of Representative Democracy. We are all citizens of the United States not just those eligible to vote. We are the people. Perhaps you recall the words of Abraham Lincoln when he said:
"Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth."
We lose this principle, we lose the true meaning of citizenship.
5
"Imagine if this law was in effect prior to the voting rights act of 1965, would we still have tests for certain citizens of the United States to vote?"
I'm not sure which aspect of the process "this law" applies to in this context, but I am forced to remind everyone that until the civil rights revolution of the '60s there WERE eligibility tests to register to vote that included literacy tests targeted against the poor and undereducated. The Supreme Court invalidated poll taxes during the same time frame, pointing out that one could not be made to pay to vote.
I'm not sure which aspect of the process "this law" applies to in this context, but I am forced to remind everyone that until the civil rights revolution of the '60s there WERE eligibility tests to register to vote that included literacy tests targeted against the poor and undereducated. The Supreme Court invalidated poll taxes during the same time frame, pointing out that one could not be made to pay to vote.
1
There should be no controversy. The constitution says " Representation......shall be apportioned among the several States .....according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a number of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Since we no longer have indentured servants or slaves (the non-free "other Persons" listed) the representatives apportionment number includes ALL FREE PERSONS and Indians paying taxes. Anyone who can read can apply this rule. The constitution does not say "citizens" or registered voters or republican fascists. If you ain't a non-taxpaying Indian and are free you are counted.
6
Justice Scalia can read, so it clearly follows that he will understand this. I'm so relieved!
Let's see what he makes up out whole cloth this time
This case is another blatant attempt to narrow the influence of minorities and to enhance the votes for Republicans.
Instead, the Supreme Court should rule that all House members should be voted at-large and the representation divided proportionally. Non-voters, unregistered or undocumented and children all deserve representation. The concerns of the angry, older white voter is loudly asserted already.
Instead, the Supreme Court should rule that all House members should be voted at-large and the representation divided proportionally. Non-voters, unregistered or undocumented and children all deserve representation. The concerns of the angry, older white voter is loudly asserted already.
110
A simple and elegant solution.
2
I agree in principle, but I am getting tired of the "older white voter" appellation and stereotype. In fact, I am tired of slicing and dicing and making assumptions about a demographic and then, essentially, assigning a label, usually with a negative connotation.
2
That is stupid. As a parent, I was responsible for voting the interests of my minor children. That's how they were represented! when they turned 18, as US citizens they could represent themselves.
1
White rural communities count prison populations towards their census numbers for the purpose of allocating representation and resources.
There are many things wrong with our electoral system, and our criminal justice system plays a key role. How is SCOTUS going to address massive incarceration of the black community as an instrument of white voting power? Will prisoners continue to be counted because white rural communities depend on the imprisonment of blacks for their economic survival?
There are many things wrong with our electoral system, and our criminal justice system plays a key role. How is SCOTUS going to address massive incarceration of the black community as an instrument of white voting power? Will prisoners continue to be counted because white rural communities depend on the imprisonment of blacks for their economic survival?
3
I think they would generally ignore this point
Don't do the crime, if you don't want to do the time.
GROW UP. Nobody is in prison "just because of race". They are scary, hardened criminals.
GROW UP. Nobody is in prison "just because of race". They are scary, hardened criminals.
This nonsense issue comes up every 4 years. If a citizen is not registered to vote and has an enormous amount of time, can even ask for help to get registered with all these get out the vote groups, why does it become a disenfranchise of the citizen if he's not responsible or does not care to vote til just right before the Election. Give me a break, you should be registered at least 2 weeks at most before the Election and have a picture ID. You need one to even get a Library Card. This is the typical Dem rant of every voter counts - that is why they want to restore the voting rights to convicted felons, and have Illegals vote to, hey they are part of the Community according to these Nation builders (sarcasm). The US Constitition is not toilet paper to use Democrats! It's the basis of our rights, liberties and Guide to prevent the self destruction of this Country by the hands of Individuals, Politicians who believe in Progressivism/Utopianism/Statists/Authoritatianistic Federal Government. Apparently they know little about the Founding of this Country and the battles to liberate it from Tyranny.
1
Perhaps you should read the Constitution on this subject.
2
Ummm no. You say "This is the typical Dem rant of every voter counts-..." Can you even understand the written word? That is actually what the Republicans want., as the article clearly insinuates. GOP says "Only Voters count." You did a very good job of make some commentators point about the intellect of Tumpeteers and Cruzisct .
2
The Founders understood that ANY group or person with too much unfettered power could become a tyrant. They never endorsed or denounced any particular political views as inherently good or bad.
To paraphrase the Greek scriptures: "Render unto the Founders that which is actually in the Constitution; render unto yourself that which is your own anachronistic personal interpretation."
To paraphrase the Greek scriptures: "Render unto the Founders that which is actually in the Constitution; render unto yourself that which is your own anachronistic personal interpretation."
US Constitution: Article. I. Section. 2.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.'
So every free Person (i.e. everyone) should be counted. Moreover, even though slaves are only to be counted as three fifths, they are still to be included in the count. And when slavery ended they became part of the free Persons who were to be counted in full. Thus if even slaves were to be included in the count and they were in the US legally but were not regarded as citizens, then persons such as legal immigrants should be counted too.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.'
So every free Person (i.e. everyone) should be counted. Moreover, even though slaves are only to be counted as three fifths, they are still to be included in the count. And when slavery ended they became part of the free Persons who were to be counted in full. Thus if even slaves were to be included in the count and they were in the US legally but were not regarded as citizens, then persons such as legal immigrants should be counted too.
9
One should always remember that voter suppression is a modern, medieval Republican's very best friend.
They adore the gerrymander that allows them to pick their own voters and hijack the House.
They adore the Senate and the Senate filibuster which provides Wyoming's 500,000 citizens and other empty red states complete Senate veto and suppression power over California's 35 million citizens and New York state's 20 million citizens.
They adore strict voter registration hurdles that intimidate and penalize the many poor and the disabled.
They love scrubbing voter registration rolls of eligible voters and then not counting all the votes as Governor Jeb Bush's staff diabolically did in Florida in 2000.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm
They love being congenitally obstructionist because it creates political gridlock which causes general voter apathy, low voter turnout and frustration and causes voters to incorrectly blame 'both parties'
Republicans love it when there is low voter turnout by every means necessary because their depraved policies have no chance when voter turnout is high, e.g. Presidential election years.
As the Republican Party literally runs out of voters in America, it is trying to do what it has to do to survive politically...eliminate the very founding principle of America --- one person equals one vote as the most basic form of 1st Amendment speech.
Nothing says sedition like modern, medieval Republican tyranny.
They adore the gerrymander that allows them to pick their own voters and hijack the House.
They adore the Senate and the Senate filibuster which provides Wyoming's 500,000 citizens and other empty red states complete Senate veto and suppression power over California's 35 million citizens and New York state's 20 million citizens.
They adore strict voter registration hurdles that intimidate and penalize the many poor and the disabled.
They love scrubbing voter registration rolls of eligible voters and then not counting all the votes as Governor Jeb Bush's staff diabolically did in Florida in 2000.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm
They love being congenitally obstructionist because it creates political gridlock which causes general voter apathy, low voter turnout and frustration and causes voters to incorrectly blame 'both parties'
Republicans love it when there is low voter turnout by every means necessary because their depraved policies have no chance when voter turnout is high, e.g. Presidential election years.
As the Republican Party literally runs out of voters in America, it is trying to do what it has to do to survive politically...eliminate the very founding principle of America --- one person equals one vote as the most basic form of 1st Amendment speech.
Nothing says sedition like modern, medieval Republican tyranny.
377
Democrats do the same thing in local elections all across the US by scheduling costly votes in off year elections where only a small minority of eligible voters come out (such as union members and government employees) etc. Of course it is convenient not to mention that....
3
kevin, perhaps where you live. Out here, local elections are limited to just two dates, the general election date in November or one special election the first week of June. Your generalization of all across the US is incorrect.
13
Nothing is new under the sun. Late Eighteenth century England had a population of c. 7 million people of whom only c. 215,000 were eligible to vote in Parliamentary elections. At this time, London had eight seats in the Lower House, while Cornwall (with barely 100,000 people) had 44 seats. Large cities like Manchester and Birmingham had no representation at all. The immense power of the House of Lords completes the picture viv a vis the disenfranchisement of the overwhelming bulk of the population.
The trick is to always limit the input of most of the people. The terminology and the exact mechanisms vary but the result is always the same. Up until their Revolution, France did much the same thing. And we are well on the way to emulating both of those aristocratic oligarchies by cementing the last bricks into the wall of separation between the governed and their governors.
The trick is to always limit the input of most of the people. The terminology and the exact mechanisms vary but the result is always the same. Up until their Revolution, France did much the same thing. And we are well on the way to emulating both of those aristocratic oligarchies by cementing the last bricks into the wall of separation between the governed and their governors.
4
Don't forget that these were likely the same people against motor-voter registration, against permitting registering to vote when one registers for the draft, against permitting 17 year olds to register to vote without having to wait until they were 18; but now that it may help them they only want to count registered voters.....Does anyone see a pattern here?
20
Yes, I do see a pattern -- for reason, decency, common sense and fairness.
1
One dollar, one vote? We could always go back to the three-fifths compromise.
7
Voting rights in this country are fundamental to our democracy. One person, one vote is the result of people fighting for representation in government and paying the price with their lives.
This Supreme Court would do us all a favor if they watched even part of the movie Selma. To forget the price that was paid is an assault on the dignity and worth of every fallen soul from Michael Schwerner to Medgar Evers to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
This Supreme Court would do us all a favor if they watched even part of the movie Selma. To forget the price that was paid is an assault on the dignity and worth of every fallen soul from Michael Schwerner to Medgar Evers to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
6
Something tells me that half the Supreme Court justices are more the "Throw Momma off the Train" type of moviegoers.
3
Very simple way to see how this will go...will it benefit the Republican party? All decisions follow that line.
44
Evidence of the framers' intent for representation to include all people & not just eligible voters is in the 3/5 clause. Slaves couldn't vote, of course, nor could they be considered the equal of whites; but they could be counted as 3/5 of a person, in order to strengthen the representation of the southern states in the House. The clause clearly images that all people are part of the electorate, even if some are more equal than others.
37
If only eligible voters should be counted in apportioning representation, then surely non-eligible residents should not be taxed.
279
That is for the voters to decide. Get it?
2
And how about changing the Senate that provides vast over representation to small and low population states?
5
@Bruce: except then we are not the "UNITED STATES of America" any longer. And we don't need a Senate at all by that standard, as it only represents states -- we already have a governing body that represents population.
1
When it comes to district residents who can't vote, the overwhelming number of them are our kids -- 75 million of them under age 18. Forget all the messy partisan questions, and boil this one down to its essence. Do we count the kids or don't we? The answer to this question seems obvious to me. Our kids use government resources, they affect the political process in all kinds of ways. We are their custodians and we vote on their behalf. Heck, in some households, they might just as well be the ones voting. Although it is sometimes hard to believe, our kids are people and not counting them does not make sense.
62
One person, one vote, leaves no doubt as to its Constitutional meaning.
Ever vote must be counted, and indeed every legal permanent resident must be allowed to vote as well, since each is contributing to the welfare and wellbeing of the the United States, and each is waiting for naturalized citizenship.
A look at the information in the following link, shows that many states understood that so called legal aliens should be recognized as having voting rights.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote_in_the_Unite...
The current makeup of the Supreme Court almost guarantees that it will not occur, since it's agenda is to disenfranchise the people in favor of the corporations.
The mood in the nation may sway them this time, as nearly all know the damage they deliberately did when they granted corporations the same rights as an individual.
Hopefully they may yet realize their job is to represent real living people.
Methinks the people are awake, finally, and they will, come November, show this government what "We the People", truly means.
Ever vote must be counted, and indeed every legal permanent resident must be allowed to vote as well, since each is contributing to the welfare and wellbeing of the the United States, and each is waiting for naturalized citizenship.
A look at the information in the following link, shows that many states understood that so called legal aliens should be recognized as having voting rights.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote_in_the_Unite...
The current makeup of the Supreme Court almost guarantees that it will not occur, since it's agenda is to disenfranchise the people in favor of the corporations.
The mood in the nation may sway them this time, as nearly all know the damage they deliberately did when they granted corporations the same rights as an individual.
Hopefully they may yet realize their job is to represent real living people.
Methinks the people are awake, finally, and they will, come November, show this government what "We the People", truly means.
20
I doubt November will change much of anything, unfortunately.
2
Legal permanent resident haven't swore their allegiance to the United States so they should not be counted.
1
Sounds like one of the biggest issues would be that there doesn't seem to be an effective or reliable method for counting eligible voters, i.e. distinguishing between eligible voters and residents. I assume eligible voters would mean U.S. citizens who are over 18. Another big issue in my mind is equity across states. I can just imagine the chaos and potential for abuse if we leave it up to the states, and here I'm speaking as a resident of Alabama, which, unfortunately, has a poor history of inclusive voting rights. Can I just add that just simply dismissing people as racists is really counterproductive?! It's no different from conservatives calling environmentalists "tree huggers." It is divisive and we certainly don't need more of that in our country right now.
76
Just as a matter of clarification, do you have a better description than "racist" for "a poor history of inclusive voting rights" which disenfranchises black folk, in a former slave state?
3
Not having a standard or reliable method has never stopped statehouse oligarchs before.
The case is clear -- We know who we want elected, so please Supreme Court, let us pick the voters to do that.
This is the reverse of representative government, where voters are presumed to pick their representatives.
Districts drawn based on the number of voters will inevitably -- and directly lead -- to an even more powerful form of gerrymandering, which is defined as the representatives picking their voters.
Those who value liberty and our Constitution cannot allow this to happen.
The case is clear -- We know who we want elected, so please Supreme Court, let us pick the voters to do that.
This is the reverse of representative government, where voters are presumed to pick their representatives.
Districts drawn based on the number of voters will inevitably -- and directly lead -- to an even more powerful form of gerrymandering, which is defined as the representatives picking their voters.
Those who value liberty and our Constitution cannot allow this to happen.
3
The term "racist" is divisive, sure. But the shoe fits here. This is only the latest in a long string of actions that have, time and time again, obstructed the ability of minorities to vote and weakened their ability to elect the candidate of their choosing.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool an entire group of people for hundreds of years through legal and quasi-legal systems of slavery/Jim Crow/vote suppression? Shame on you.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool an entire group of people for hundreds of years through legal and quasi-legal systems of slavery/Jim Crow/vote suppression? Shame on you.
5
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment controls the drawing of all federal and legislative districts in the US. If states deny or abridge, in any way, the fundamental right to vote of minorities, women, seniors and youths, including students, states are to be stripped of US House seats and Electors in proportion to the numbers of voters harmed.
Texas, Arizona, and Florida all benefitted from the 2010 Census which included undocumented immigrants in the states' counts and allowed re-apportionment of five or six additional US House seats and Electors, maybe more!
If the apellants win their argument, they may dilute the voting power of urban centers but will require the re-drawing of all the US House maps in the US to have them only include registered voters, not any undocumented immigrants.
The result would be wholesale re-allocation of US House seats and Electors, redistricting in all states, and likely losses of some Republican gains in US House seats and Electors in states which populations have disproportionate numbers of undocumented immigrants who are prohibited from voting.
Another shocking result would be the re-allocation of billions in federal block grant funds and reimbursements based upon population which had tended to favor those same Southern states which traditionally get far more federal tax dollars than they pay into the kitty.
So, Texas, lay on! We folks in Missouri would like a US House seat and Elector back and more government money at your expense!
Texas, Arizona, and Florida all benefitted from the 2010 Census which included undocumented immigrants in the states' counts and allowed re-apportionment of five or six additional US House seats and Electors, maybe more!
If the apellants win their argument, they may dilute the voting power of urban centers but will require the re-drawing of all the US House maps in the US to have them only include registered voters, not any undocumented immigrants.
The result would be wholesale re-allocation of US House seats and Electors, redistricting in all states, and likely losses of some Republican gains in US House seats and Electors in states which populations have disproportionate numbers of undocumented immigrants who are prohibited from voting.
Another shocking result would be the re-allocation of billions in federal block grant funds and reimbursements based upon population which had tended to favor those same Southern states which traditionally get far more federal tax dollars than they pay into the kitty.
So, Texas, lay on! We folks in Missouri would like a US House seat and Elector back and more government money at your expense!
222
Very interesting perspective. Another angle -- if people under 18 will no longer count, the following states stand to "lose" the greatest percentage of population for purposes of allocating representatives and federal funding:
Utah
Idaho
Texas
Georgia
Arizona
Mississippi
Kansas
Nebraska
New Mexico
California
I suspect the incentive to add people to the voting rolls would become a paramount state interest, so we could expect to see all sorts of interesting initiatives with states trying to add people to the voting rolls, even if they never do end up voting. That way they can "grow" their populations quite rapidly!
Utah
Idaho
Texas
Georgia
Arizona
Mississippi
Kansas
Nebraska
New Mexico
California
I suspect the incentive to add people to the voting rolls would become a paramount state interest, so we could expect to see all sorts of interesting initiatives with states trying to add people to the voting rolls, even if they never do end up voting. That way they can "grow" their populations quite rapidly!
I hope your calculations are correct sir! Wouldn't it also be nice to require states to draw congressional district lines based on the geographical proximity of voters, rather than gerrymandering in an attempt to maximize partisan gains in congress? This also feels like a gross violation of the principle of each voter having an equal say.
3
Calling their bluff, I like it.
2
I wish some other Supreme Court were deciding this case, given the mess the Roberts made of Shelby County v Holder.
And if this is decided in favor of the plaintiffs (what was their standing to bring the case, anyway?), then look for "registered voters" next being the only ones who count in the next "one person, one vote" challenge. Given how Republican states are aggressively culling eligible voters from the rolls, and preventing new ones from voting by dint of draconian voter ID statutes, we will soon be back to white men of property determining the course of the country for the rest of us.
And if this is decided in favor of the plaintiffs (what was their standing to bring the case, anyway?), then look for "registered voters" next being the only ones who count in the next "one person, one vote" challenge. Given how Republican states are aggressively culling eligible voters from the rolls, and preventing new ones from voting by dint of draconian voter ID statutes, we will soon be back to white men of property determining the course of the country for the rest of us.
135
Property ownership or some other proxy for being a stakeholder might not be a bad requirement. We need some mechanism to prevent the masses of poor from voting themselves other people's hard work and achievement.
3
Wow, you want to strip "the poor" of voting rights, because you think that via their votes they take your "hard work and achievement"? So only property owners, and not renters--even though not all renters are poor (I pay my taxes on my nice salary, thank you, but live in an outrageously expensive housing market). I'm sorry, even the poor are "stakeholders"--affected by government policy just as much, if not more, than you. Never mind tax policy or transportation policy or education policy or foreign policy or all the amenities of daily life we all need; the sons and daughters of the poor are disproportionately stepping up to serve in the military and defend all of us, and even your right to bigotry and hatred.
8
Your day of reckoning will come, DRS. Don't think you are the only one who's just so special your value is indisputable.
3
The idea that people in this country who do not have the right to vote should be counted is wrong. If you take the argument to the extreme it would allow tourists to be counted (although this argument doesn't say that).
Citizenship and the right to vote has to mean something. And the folks who want to count everybody, especially illegal aliens, have an agenda that these people should eventually be given this important right, even though they have not earned it, but will have stolen it.
I hope that the Supreme Court sees through this charade.
Citizenship and the right to vote has to mean something. And the folks who want to count everybody, especially illegal aliens, have an agenda that these people should eventually be given this important right, even though they have not earned it, but will have stolen it.
I hope that the Supreme Court sees through this charade.
15
Every person has a stake in the laws and policies enacted in their communities. A legislator's actions affect everyone, and everyone should therefore be counted.
Many times people forget to register, move for a short time, have a temporary situation that prevents them for registering. That does not mean they don't have an interest in their local communities.
You count everyone, the only fair way.
Many times people forget to register, move for a short time, have a temporary situation that prevents them for registering. That does not mean they don't have an interest in their local communities.
You count everyone, the only fair way.
16
Read the constitution. Apportionment of representatives is based on the number of free persons in a state. It does not say citizens, or registered voters or any other group who's membership can be controlled by the powerful.
5
Forgetting to register, moving, or temporarily not having registration does not eliminate them from the "eligible voter" list. If they are eligible to vote they still will be counted whether or not they are registered.
Ms. Evenwel and Mr. Pfenninger represent what is wrong in this country. narrow mind, litigious and blatantly racists. Living lives full of hate is not American, not even human.
We should all fight against the small minded bigotry of Ms. Evenwel and Mr. Pfenninger.
We should all fight against the small minded bigotry of Ms. Evenwel and Mr. Pfenninger.
89
Oh, and assuming that minorities are too unskilled to obtain a voter ID ISN'T racist?
3
No one is assuming that but you, Mr. Pops.
Assuming that poor, homeless, disabled or elderly people of any color may lack the resources to register (I.e., time off work, fixed address, child care, physical ability, transportation, etc.) is totally NOT racist.
And what about children not eligible to vote? They don't count, literally?
Assuming that poor, homeless, disabled or elderly people of any color may lack the resources to register (I.e., time off work, fixed address, child care, physical ability, transportation, etc.) is totally NOT racist.
And what about children not eligible to vote? They don't count, literally?
1
Not too unskilled to get a voter ID, but in many cases too poor to afford one. Should the poor not be allowed to vote? Should we require people to bring their IRS statements in order to be eligible to vote?
1
Does the vote mean anything in view of gerrymandering and wealthy backers? Electing true representatives is at stake.
Is the SCOTUS willing to see that all voters are represented fairly? Big problem again in view of gerrymandering.
The system is being picked apart to basically guarantee Republican votes be counted and the expense of the rest of the voters.
Is the SCOTUS willing to see that all voters are represented fairly? Big problem again in view of gerrymandering.
The system is being picked apart to basically guarantee Republican votes be counted and the expense of the rest of the voters.
74
Generations of blacks have been convicted of non-violent offenses for the purpose of disenfranchising blacks after the gains of the Civil Rights movement, such as the Voting Rights Act. That disenfranchisement led to white voters voting for reps to lock up more blacks than China, a country 4G our size at 1.2nd people, has in prison.
Is SCOTUS going to make sure blacks, who have been wrongfully disenfranchised since they were brought here in chains, are going to be able to exercise the right to vote? What about those who served their time in general? Will their rights be restored?
Many people in this country cannot vote for reasons that are unfair or unjust. Many people's vote matters less than others because of gerrymandering. Can we fix those problems first?
Is SCOTUS going to make sure blacks, who have been wrongfully disenfranchised since they were brought here in chains, are going to be able to exercise the right to vote? What about those who served their time in general? Will their rights be restored?
Many people in this country cannot vote for reasons that are unfair or unjust. Many people's vote matters less than others because of gerrymandering. Can we fix those problems first?
17
It's not just blacks getting disenfranchised. The war on selected drugs provides a steady stream of disenfranchisees of all colors, mostly concentrated on Democrat leaning voters. The 2000 election in Florida only became so close because of all the people who were wrongly disenfranchised for bogus crimes, so the Republican campaign to disenfranchise voters has been spectacularly successful, for Republicans.
5
@newageblues: are you seriously saying that lefty liberals and Democrats are more likely to break the laws of this nation, and are more likely to be drug users?
Do you really want to go there?
Do you really want to go there?
1
Over time the GOP will represent a smaller and smaller share of the population, due to demographic changes.
The appeal of GOP to independent voters will also likely decline as its positions become more and more extreme as they play to their 'base'.
As a result, in order to win elections they will have to use money as 'speech' and other similarly ludicrous Supreme Court decisions in order to corrupt democracy in America and win elections that serve only the rich minority of Americans.
I would not place my faith in the SCOTUS with its right leaning judges to fairly interpret the US constitution. Things in America are far too politicized to expect fair and rational decisions.
The appeal of GOP to independent voters will also likely decline as its positions become more and more extreme as they play to their 'base'.
As a result, in order to win elections they will have to use money as 'speech' and other similarly ludicrous Supreme Court decisions in order to corrupt democracy in America and win elections that serve only the rich minority of Americans.
I would not place my faith in the SCOTUS with its right leaning judges to fairly interpret the US constitution. Things in America are far too politicized to expect fair and rational decisions.
160
You neglect account for the idea that as voters age, they become increasingly conservative. Instead of dying out, the two party system replenishes the ranks of Republicans everyday. While the current Republican primary is a pandering festival of right wing ideas, there will always be a viable conservative party in a two party system.
3
Wishful thinking. The latest polls show that independents are tracking very tightly with Republicans. Liberals just don't understand true Americans any more and want to live in a fantasy land. Punishing American voters by rewarding illegals is against everything that America stands for.
10
fixed your post:
"The appeal of Democrats to independent voters will also likely decline as their positions become more and more extreme as they play to their 'base'."
"The appeal of Democrats to independent voters will also likely decline as their positions become more and more extreme as they play to their 'base'."
5
The supreme court needs to come down hard on the side of counting the entire population for determining representation, for two reasons.
First and foremost, everybody living in a district is affected by the outcomes of elections.
Second, leaving it up to individual jurisdictions whether total population, or registered voter population is counted for representation would be unequal application of the law and a violation of the 14th amendment.
First and foremost, everybody living in a district is affected by the outcomes of elections.
Second, leaving it up to individual jurisdictions whether total population, or registered voter population is counted for representation would be unequal application of the law and a violation of the 14th amendment.
128
Your second reason isn't a reason: it's an argument. It's one of the issues that the Supreme Court would have to decide. A difference between jurisdictions does not necessarily violate the equal protection clause.
3
Wrong. By counting everyone who is not a citizen and who can not vote, you are in effect diluting the rights of American citizens by giving them less representation.
7
No, by counting everyone you are actually increasing the power of those who do vote because they will also be determining the laws and representatives of those who cannot vote. Americans citizens who can vote but don't are voluntarily giving up their rights. If they vote, even counting non citizens doesn't dilute that vote.
4
As noted, the Constitution says the whole number of persons. It does not say eligible voters and there is no census of eligible voters, only a census of everyone. This lawsuit appears to be a first step in rolling back voting to eventually mean only white male property owners.
287
Sadly the idea that noncitizens of the US are people has become controversial.
3
The Constitution says a lot of things, like "Well regulated militia", for example.
I don't see that much " Well regulating" coming from the Supreme Court when it comes to guns, so I see no reason why Scalia and company can't just ignore other parts of the Constitution as well in this case.
I don't see that much " Well regulating" coming from the Supreme Court when it comes to guns, so I see no reason why Scalia and company can't just ignore other parts of the Constitution as well in this case.
9
At the time the relevant clause of the Constitution was written women could not vote but were still counted as "whole persons," while slaves, also ineligible, were counted as three-fifths of a person. You are correct, Tom, that a strict and historical reading of the Constitution would say that every person, and not just eligible voters, should be counted. It should be a no-brainer for the "strict constructions" like Scalia. We'll see.
14
Now, it is well documented that virtually all of the Republicans and a considerable portion of Democrats in power these days are either for shrinking the size of government or are running away from supporting any expansion. Barring a counting system to count eligible voters, I see it being left up to the officials in power at the moment. And those officials ideologies and biases would undoubtedly affect the results.
Bottom line, this could be just another serious assault on democracy in America.
Having said all that, I do agree with other posters about the concept of 'One person one vote'. Citizens United and the resultant flood of money into politics by billionaires and large corporations has tainted our Democracy to the point where this SCOTUS decision is probably moot.