The Supreme Court has agreed to consider a major shift in how political districts are drawn nationwide by counting only citizens who can vote, not the total population. If the justices eventually rule for the conservative group that appealed the issue, the decision could dilute the political power of Latinos, especially in large states such as Texas, California and Florida. The court said Tuesday it will hear the case in the fall and rule early next year.
This is an interesting challenge.
Supreme Court to hear case that could change how voting districts are drawn - LA Times
There is precedent but it's ugly. Under the old three-fifths rule a slave was counted as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes.
This is one of those cases where I expect a straight partisan vote, as it is all about partisan power. This court will side with anything that allows more conservatives to get into offices, even if it further subverts the democratic process.
I can't see how this passes as it seems to violate equal protection of minors.
Not an issue I have ever thought of. But I think our representatives should represent EVERYONE in their district, not just the voters.
Not an issue I have ever thought of. But I think our representatives should represent EVERYONE in their district, not just the voters.
Why should they represent non-voters? There are only three types of people that are not allowed to vote. Those that are in prison (which is against the Constitution imo and needs to be rectified). Those that are here legally but are not citizens. Which is a good idea that they not be represented for the simple fact that their allegiance is to another country and we do not want other countries dictating our laws. And people that are here illegally. And the reason that they should not be represented is the same reason that I just put forth for those here legally.
They would still represent everyone. The issue is that the voting districts would be drawn up based on the population of those allowed to vote (IMO, it needs to be based on number of citizens, but this is a good starting point to hammer out the details).
And people under 18.
They should represent everyone because people from all the groups you mention participate in the community. They contribute their labor. They own property. They utilize resources. They pay taxes, even if it is just sales tax.
My wife isn't a citizen yet. I don't think she should be able to vote until she has that citizenship but I damn sure think our representatives should keep her interests in mind, just as they do my children, who can't vote yet either.
Until she is a citizen then she is a representative of another country. Should we also let Ambassadors of other countries be represented in our system? They live here. They can and often do own property here. And yes, they even pay sales taxes.
Not the same. Ambassadors and other diplomats aren't subject to our jurisdiction and they can recoup their sales taxes. I was a diplomat for the better part of two decades so I have a little experience in that area.
My wife, on the other hand, DOES pay sales and income taxes and is subject to our laws. She shouldn't get a vote until she is a citizen but our representatives should still care about what she thinks, especially since she helps finance the government.
I wish they could make a decision regarding gerrymandering as well, but sadly the constitution is clear on that one.
Why would there be any reason to draw voting districts based on anything other than the population of CITIZENS?? We are the ones who vote and are represented by our elected officials, so why should anyone outside that group be included in the decisions on voting districts?? Non-citizens have no voice in our gov't, just the protection of our laws and that's the way it needs to be (and is in pretty much every country on the planet).
Why should they care what she thinks? Paying taxes is not enough of a reason. Particularly since she is still beholden to another country.
lots of refugee/asylum seekers have no such guaranteed stance.
That precedent was rather assertively removed, though.
Wouldn't this remove representatives for the southern states?
Not an issue I have ever thought of. But I think our representatives should represent EVERYONE in their district, not just the voters.
This is one of those cases where I expect a straight partisan vote, as it is all about partisan power. This court will side with anything that allows more conservatives to get into offices, even if it further subverts the democratic process.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?