• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SC turns back right wing challenge to population count Texas

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-940_ed9g.pdf

The US Supreme Court takes action turning back a right wing effort in Texas to dilute minority population in the country to determine redistricting. This was just one of the right wing schemes to attempt to go against demographics that weaken the voting power of white voters who tend to vote republican.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-940_ed9g.pdf

The US Supreme Court takes action turning back a right wing effort in Texas to dilute minority population in the country to determine redistricting. This was just one of the right wing schemes to attempt to go against demographics that weaken the voting power of white voters who tend to vote republican.

Just to provide a little bit of background on this case - essentially Texas, and specifically the conservative leaning members of the legislature, wanted to test the "one person, one vote" aspect of the Constitution. The argument that they put forward is that one person, one vote refers - when you are deciding where to draw the district lines - solely to individuals that are actually allowed to vote. The impact of this type of analysis would be to draw the influence away from urban areas, which tend to have a lot more individuals that can not vote (children, felons, etc.) towards rural areas.

This argument, of course, was opposed by most voting rights advocates on the grounds that an individual should not effectively lose their representation merely because they can not vote. This opinion was a near unanimous win for voting rights advocates (the lone asterisk being that Alito and Thomas filed concurring opinions).

All in all, a good decision.
 
Top Bottom