Discussion for article #243360
If the SCOTUS allows states to draw districts based on the numbers of eligible voters, then would that mean that the same metric should be used to determine the size of each stateās congressional delegation?
13 Likes
Bye, bye, personhood.
6 Likes
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.
Ok constitutional originalists, letās see your bullshit flow onto bullshit mountain.
16 Likes
The entire American āexperimentā in democracy depends on allowing all voters to have their say. But Republicans are restricting voter rights in many states. They want the āintegrityā of our voter rights without any proof that this integrity has been compromised. The Supreme Court should put an end to this unwarranted nonsense. Regrettably, Republicans want to go back where only white male property holders voters have the right to vote. It is the only they stay in power. I hope the Supreme Court will put an end to this.
2 Likes
In addition to the apparently-clear language of the constitution (and no, the native-american exception doesnāt get you anywhere unless you make treaties with undocumented immigrant groups and exempt them from taxes), the challengersā idea opens up an endless warehouse full of worm cans. Even if you could count adults eligible to vote (and doing that requires statistical adjustments to census data that should make the āconservativesā who scream about sampling hand their heads in shame), those numbers change or time in ways that total population doesnāt. So, for example, everyone between the ages of 8 and 18 would be partially disenfranchised until the next redistricting, all the felons who were in a position to petition for restoration of rightsā¦ Redistrictings could be held up indefinitely while litigation dragged on about the procedures to use.
All of which would be fine for people who donāt actually care about governing.
2 Likes
soā¦
corporations = people, even though they cannot vote, no caveats whatsoever
and
human beings = people, but only if they can vote
Get ready, because Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are going to fuck us deep, hard and unlubed with this. Anything for white power. ANYTHING.
6 Likes
Neverā¦ soon we will be back to the position that only property (business) owners are eligible and they will also get to vote for the 3/5th people they āemployā.
1 Like
How far will they go? Well, I donāt think theyāll bring back poll taxes (at least not yet), but I doubt anything else is safe.
The bottom line is that older, white voters will continue to find voting easily done, and everybody else can stay home or go to hell (unless they can be persuaded to vote for Republicans, in which case weāll have new rules).
1 Like
Only in America can one single individual make it his life mission to undermine the accomplishments achieved during the Civil Rights era, and have successā¦only in America
2 Likes
Absolutely!
If a state wants to count only registered voters when it comes to redistricting, I say let them do that. In return, however, they donāt get to tax anyone other than registered voters. Deal?
2 Likes
Thereās an āother side of the coinā issue here that Iāve never seen mentioned - prison districts. Districts in which prisons are located now include the (obviously non-voting eligible) prison inmate population as part of their population counts. And since prisons tend to be located in rural conservative districts while the majority of the inmates come from elsewhere, this results in an overrepresentation for these districts. Are they proposing eliminating this as well?
1 Like
Assume for a moment the worst happens - SCOTUS issues a decision supporting redistricting by counting registered voters.
Applying a little logic, does this logic apply to the myriad ways people seek assistance from their congressman or senators? Imagine calling your congressmanās office - you military academy admission support letter, or perhaps youāre a veteran who has exhausted virtually every avenue without being able to get approval for a medical procedure you desperately need now?
So, you call your congressman or senatorās office. You get put through to the appropriate staff aid. You cut right to the chase, concisely talking about why you are calling, and the aid suddenly interrupts you:
āMr. Smith,ā the aid says, āsorry to interrupt you but I need to ask you a question. Are you currently registered to vote?ā
āUh, uhm, no. But I live in District 9ā¦been here since 2004.ā
āIām sorry Mr. Smith, but constituent services are only provided to registered voters living in District 9.ā
āButā¦ā
"I AM sorry, Mr. Smith, living in the district doesnāt count ā you must be registered to vote.
But wait! Thereās more.
Suppose Mr. Smith had 'Yes, Iām registered-fact voted for the congressman in the last three elections."
āVery good to know. All you have to do is send us copy of your current voter registration card. You can send it by fax, email, or overnight letter, and this office will call you when we receive it.ā
SCOTUS has already ruled that corporations have the same rights as people.
Should SCOTUS rule that districts must be drawn based the number of eligible voters in each district, I will be reversing itās own original rulings in the early 1960ās, which is where the āone-man one-voteā phrase came from. The ruling was supported in part, by 2 phrases from the constitution:
All men are created equal
ā¦of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Corpations have the same rights as individuals, and SCOTUS is on the brink of make some of the individuals less than equal.
What constitution? What law? SCOTUS diminishes itself.
2 Likes
Maybe we should just go back to allowing only the land-owning gentry the right to vote.
Gee, and here I thought district lines were drawn based on the number of Republican voters to ensure that the Republicans will have a majority in the House of Representatives for perpetuity no matter how insane their policy positions become.
1 Like
Per the 14th Amendment, Section 2:
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.
Can somebody explain how this case even got this far given the clear, unambiguous language of the Constitution?
Well, those phrases arenāt actually from the Constitution (the Declaration and the Gettysburg Address); @DanF and others here have cited the relevant section, which youād think would be enough for any constitutional āoriginalistā or strict-constructionist. But IMHO your scenarioās definitely a logical outcome; and Iād love to see a right-winger who cheered this effort at the moment heād realize that his well-trained, like-minded son, 16 years old in a census year, was effectively disenfranchised until he was 26 wrt his Congressional representation. And if that right-winger lived in a rural district with a large prison, heād suddenly realize heād cheered his way to his own reduced clout in DC. Itād almost be worth seeing it happen. (Almostā¦)
Because this case involves how Texas draws district boundaries for election of the number of Representatives apportioned to Texas per the 14th.
This is ridiculous. The original framers clearly wanted to count all inhabitants, not just eligible voters. If the Roberts court overturns this principle, they will be the most radically activist court in history.