Discussion for article #236757
Because racism.
12 Likes
Anything to cheat.
14 Likes
Texas=where all the stupid ideas marinate.
12 Likes
Stupid is not quite the right word – try selfish, conniving and racist.
17 Likes
So putting aside the obvious racist attempt to disenfranchise immigrants of representation, these anti-democratic chazzers don’t even want children born in this country to be counted and their rights recognized by the government. And what about felons who cannot vote? Non-persons all?
14 Likes
Uhhh, it’s not “one registrant, one vote;” it’s “one person, one vote!”
I’m surprised they aren’t fighting to get the “little babies” of recently conceived eggs to count.
17 Likes
Well I don’t know about you, but all I can say is: THANK GOD! Because if there’s one thing that’s wrong with this country, it’s the lack of influence rural areas have over policy, am I right? I mean, c’mon, think about those poor rural conservatives in places like Wyoming and the Dakotas. They only have TWO senators for each state, the same as that ungodly urban California! So boo hoo all you want, I think what this country needs is MORE influence over policy for people like the Duggars and the Cheneys, and if we get really lucky, the Supreme Court will just go ahead to the next logical step: one rural white conservative, one vote. Period! That’s the REAL AMERICA! Sarah Palin told me so.
29 Likes
Sarcasm becomes you…
2 Likes
All we need to do is repeal all those silly Constitutional Amendments that enfranchised everyone but white male property owners, ensure that two white males owning property, but married, would also be disenfranchised, and voila! Republican President in 2016!
8 Likes
Hasn’t the Florida GOP been testing these kinds of restrictions out? Even with their most heinous efforts, the SCOTUS still repealed portions of the Voting Rights Act, so obviously they must be legal.
2 Likes
the next logical step: one rural white conservative, one vote.
C’mon, that isn’t the next logical step. The next “logical” step is to realize that it’s “One Person, One Vote” and “Corporations are People, Too My Friend”!
Yup, give corporations the vote and we wouldn’t have all these pesky problems with voters who don’t do the right thing. I for one will welcome our Corporate Overlords (and then pack up and move back to Canada…)
8 Likes
“The challengers claim that taking account of total population can lead to vast differences in the number of voters in particular districts, along with corresponding differences in the power of those voters.”
Also leading to corresponding differences in the power of individual voters – starting with a 50/50 split and creating 5 districts that are 52% Republican and 1 district which is 90% Democratic. Lots of powerless Democrats in those 5 districts, but not so many powerless Republicans in the 1 district. Can SCOTUS take a look at that while they are discussing this case?
13 Likes
Their “constituency” is literally dying off and they NEED to redraw the districts or the “mud people” will become the majority and they will lose their power positions.
The march towards “Apartheid” is on, wrapped in the Flag, Carrying a Cross, and an AR-15.
9 Likes
Democracy should be easy. Making it hard means it isn’t a democracy in the first place.
5 Likes
The Supreme Court’s decision called Citizens United means that corporations get the vote. Until we get publiclly-funded elections with no private contributions to candidates allowed, our democracy remains dead.
Bye.
2 Likes
There is one class of rural area that would presumably lose some clout: districts with prisons. The prisoners are counted for Census purposes (hence for redistricting purposes) as residents of the prison, but they can’t vote. So everyone else in a legislative district with a prison is somewhat overrepresented: they’re voting on behalf of both themselves and the prisoners, even though the locals have no commonality with the prisoners.
As far as noncitizens are concerned, I think it makes sense to exclude them from the redistricting count, because they’re not citizens, and noncitizens shouldn’t be represented.
But children are another story. The political interests of children are presumably represented by the adult citizens in their community, acting and voting on their behalf. You can’t just say the kids should go unrepresented because they’re not old enough to vote.
Non-citizens aren’t necessarily undocumented. They can be permanent residents who hold legitimate green cards and/or haven’t yet been naturalized. They live in the country full time, may own property and pay their fair share of taxes. If they haven’t yet obtained the right to vote, surely they are contributing and have a vested interest in being counted as part of a district’s constituency.
9 Likes
Gotta hand it to Texas, they can’t/won’t secede because of that whole having to pay for things themselves rather than from Uncle Sam, but with deceptive and underhanded legislation can create a whole new country. They manipulate, manipulate, subvert, divert and sabotage the constitution to meet their own narrow-minded point of view.
1 Like
As was mentioned elsewhere in another comment, this is actually going to affect both districts with high non citizen populations, but also areas with high percentages of felons without the right to vote, please read: black citizens. Black citizens are incarcerated at a much higher rate than white, generally because they have no money and get horrific representation or no representation in court, because many municipalities, especially in the south, use them as an ATM with fines and fees, and because laws, frankly, were written with racist intent to criminalize things that blacks do more frequently than white people. I might be more ok with this if they also don’t count those residents excluded from voting when they allocate house seats, but that’s certainly not happening. Texas wants them to count for house seats but not allow them to actually be represented. Maybe we can compromise and count them as 3/5 of a person.
2 Likes