Discussion: Hillary Clinton Calls For SCOTUS To Uphold 'One Person, One Vote'

Discussion for article #243597

How does not counting NON-CITIZENS violate “one person, one vote”. I believe NON-CITIZENS are not suppose to be voting.

So non-citizens should count when determining the number of representatives a state gets, but not when grouping population into districts?

That dilutes my vote as a non-resident of Texas.

6 Likes

Non-citizens contribute to their communities. They work, they do pay taxes, they volunteer, they often strive to become citizens. But you, supposedly a Marine, would deny them the right to have a voice in their future.

What we are witnessing is another attempt to disenfranchise an entire swath of the population. It’s time to take down the Statue of Liberty. She is no longer relevant in America.

10 Likes

I’m old enough to remember when Tea Party Republicans were against taxation without representation.

Why, revolutions have been won over less this exact thing.

9 Likes

“We the people”… Not “We the registered voters” or even “We the citizens.” Non-citizens at the time included all slaves.

But, today, non-citizens frequently turn into citizens. Regardless, this is also about citizens (children, teens, ex-felons, etc.) that can’t or just don’t vote. Many of these people pay taxes.

I am surprised you support taxation without representation. You know, one of the most fundamental ideals of this country that is tied directly to “one person, one vote.”

9 Likes

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state’s total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored (but fewer than if counts of slaves and free persons had been lumped together), allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1865.[1] The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

See it is Constitutional.

I find it amazing that the South back then needed this compromise and now they need it to go away.

The only way forward now is by a Constitutional Amendment. However in light of Scalia’s thought maybe not.

3 Likes

I believe Nino has the answer to this one. It’s right there in the constitution, and the intent of the writers is very clear. These people who are ineligible to vote should count as 3/5 of a person.
BTW, it is also clear that when this doc was written, only those with property could vote, but representation was based on the number of citizens added to the above 3/5.

3 Likes

People in smaller cities and towns and in rural areas are more likely to be white, registered [Republican] voters than people in urban areas [not white, Democrats]. So what the Republicans really want is to give non-urban more clout in state legislatures.

In other words, this is yet another GOP power play. That’s all.

9 Likes

The three-fifths compromise was superseded by the section 2 of the 14th Amendment.

In any event the plaintiffs aren’t challenging how Representatives are apportioned to the states, but rather how their districts are drawn.

Troll. It violates everything the country has done since founding. Even slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for this purpose and they could not vote. People who cannot vote still pay taxes and must obey the laws of the land and our biggest grief with England when we revolted was taxation without representation. The entire purpose of the representative system that was established was to make sure that EVERYONE has representation, not just those who can vote. This is nothing but a naked attempt to “undo” the demographic shifts that are taking away white dominance and causing existential problems for the GOP/Teatrolls/conservatives as a movement and party, particularly in national elections.

Why stop here. Why not only count those who actually bother to register? Or even better, count only those who DO cast a vote? They’re going to argue for further and further and further restriction as white majority, dominance, supremacy, privilege and control wanes in the face of demographic shifts that they cannot control or stop. If they get this ruling, then it dovetails perfectly with their attempts to restrict and suppress who gets to register to vote or vote at all. Suddenly, we’ll be back to them talking about land ownership or bringing in other things like whether the person has debts or is employed, etc.

It’s disgusting and it is 100% undeniable this is ALL about white supremacy and racism.

13 Likes

The entire premise of this argument before the Court is ludicrous. It would leave huge numbers of people to be taxed without representation, and to be underserved by the government as non-persons who could not access whatever the government provides.

Either eligible or registered is a ridiculous idea for basing represenatitives’ districts. No children and teenagers would be counted–and government allocations to the district would therefore be cut accordingly.

2 Likes

Yes, even non-citizens are “represented” - they just don’t participate in the process of electing the representative

To take the position that if you don’t have the right to vote - you don’t get counted in the structuring of the government is counter to long standing tradition - and becomes absurd - would then be excluding all under the age of 18 from the counting of the population? - or do you only count the offspring of registered voters?

2 Likes

This change would mean that many in America, including children and non-citizen residents, would no longer be counted for purposes of representation in every state in the country

Exactly what they’d like. And in honor of the 100 anniversary of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, they’d be glad to go back to counting black people as only 3/5’s of a person.

Kind of funny since that was actually southerners trying to get themselves more power in the capital and not actually giving blacks any real rights.

1 Like

Indeed it is. And it speaks volumes about those who want it wanting white supremacy. Of course they never seem to be able to come right out and say those words about themselves.

1 Like

To be fair, I just don’t see Kennedy going along with the white supremacist portion of the SCOTUS on this one. I think he will recognize this for what it is, but will hide behind the “children” argument.

Let’s pray I’m right…or that if I’m wrong, he surprises me by joining in with the “liberal half” of the court, recognizing this is all about racism, race resentment and white fright and supremacy and is nothing but a naked attempt to further marginalize and render powerless those “least among us” who most need the representation to obtain the government’s protection from society’s abuses.

3 Likes

Her argument is to uphold “one person, one vote”. Who’s ability to vote is being taken away? Non-Citizens are not allowed to vote. I understanding the underlying intent, which is to create additional districts utilizing illegal immigrant population because Democrats believe that will generate more districts likely to vote for Democrats. But she is calling for something that is just stupid. Nobody’s legal right to vote is being violated.

Once they become citizens, then they will have the right to vote.

I agree they shouldn’t count at all.

Slaves were brought here against their will. ILLEGAL ALIENS came here in violation of our laws. NOBODY ROUNDED THEM UP and forced them to come or to overstay their legal limit, therefore I don’t give a shit if they not being counted. especially when the sole purpose is to empower the Democratic party. If they don’t like how they are being treated, they can always just go back to where they came.

The argument that Hillary put forth is stupid. She is claiming that someone someones right to vote is being violated. NOBODY’s voting right is being violated. NON-CITIZENS don’t have the right to vote.