• 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!

Supreme Court upholds 'one person, one vote'

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to change the way state and municipal voting districts are drawn, denying an effort by conservatives that could have increased the number of rural, mostly white districts at the expense of urban, largely Hispanic ones.

Today the Supreme Court rejected Texas Republicans' unconstitutional attempt at a power grab, by ruling that illegal aliens and non-citizens cannot be counted for the purpose of drawing legislative districts. Here is the punch line. Texas Republicans, who frequently state that the Constitution does not apply to non-citizens, attempted to use the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment here. LMAO.

And this was not a divided vote. It was unanimous. Another defeat for blatant political hackery and attempts to water down minority voting power. Keeping Texas as white as they can was a desperation move from a party that is slowly but surely losing power. All their little tricks and gerrymandering will only prolong the inevitable. Republicans only hope to stay viable in the next decade is to begin to embrace some of the same groups they have been relentlessly attacking. Good luck with that.

NOTE: Roberts and Ginsberg agreeing on something? Who would have thunk it? :mrgreen:

Article is here.

And here is the document of the actual decision.
 
Last edited:

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
15,862
Reaction score
6,699
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
A very important decision, with an 8-0 consensus.

Supreme Court upholds 'one person, one vote'

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to change the way state and municipal voting districts are drawn, denying an effort by conservatives that could have increased the number of rural, mostly white districts at the expense of urban, largely Hispanic ones.

The "one person, one vote" case was among the most consequential of the high court's term, and it delivered a major victory for civil rights groups that opposed opening the door to drawing districts based on the number of voters, rather than total population. The unanimous ruling left intact Texas' method — followed by nearly all states — of counting residents when drawing state and local voting districts.

Seems to be rather obvious, doesn't it? However the Republicans in Texas thought they had a new way to lessen the influence of those who tend to vote for Democratic candidates. They had redrawn voting districts by counting only those persons eligible to vote - no children and no immigrants (legal residents) would be counted in creating "equal" districts. The question then comes down to ""Whether a state is permitted to use some measure other than total population" in the future.

Though they concurred in this decision, Justices Thompson and Alito "agreed that Texas cannot be forced to switch to using only eligible voters in drawing districts, but they said the Constitution does not require that approach.

"The choice is best left for the people of the states to decide for themselves how they should apportion their legislature," Thomas wrote.
This of course sets up future battles over representation for all legal residents of this nation.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A very important decision, with an 8-0 consensus.



Seems to be rather obvious, doesn't it? However the Republicans in Texas thought they had a new way to lessen the influence of those who tend to vote for Democratic candidates. They had redrawn voting districts by counting only those persons eligible to vote - no children and no immigrants (legal residents) would be counted in creating "equal" districts. The question then comes down to ""Whether a state is permitted to use some measure other than total population" in the future.

Though they concurred in this decision, Justices Thompson and Alito "agreed that Texas cannot be forced to switch to using only eligible voters in drawing districts, but they said the Constitution does not require that approach.

"The choice is best left for the people of the states to decide for themselves how they should apportion their legislature," Thomas wrote.
This of course sets up future battles over representation for all legal residents of this nation.

Guess what? I beat you by ONE MINUTE on this one. LOL.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Listening to Judge Andrew Napolitano this morning, he stated the law which was challenged was put in place in by a republican legislature, and governor.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Today the Supreme Court rejected Texas Republicans' unconstitutional attempt at a power grab, by ruling that illegal aliens and non-citizens cannot be counted for the purpose of drawing legislative districts. Here is the punch line. Texas Republicans, who frequently state that the Constitution does not apply to non-citizens, attempted to use the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment here. LMAO.

And this was not a divided vote. It was unanimous. Another defeat for blatant political hackery and attempts to water down minority voting power. Keeping Texas as white as they can was a desperation move from a party that is slowly but surely losing power. All their little tricks and gerrymandering will only prolong the inevitable. Republicans only hope to stay viable in the next decade is to begin to embrace some of the same groups they have been relentlessly attacking. Good luck with that.

NOTE: Roberts and Ginsberg agreeing on something? Who would have thunk it? :mrgreen:

Article is here.

And here is the document of the actual decision.

Guess what? I got it backwards. Was typing too fast, and didn't read what I posted. Hell, I didn't even read the decision correctly. SCOTUS ruled that EVERYBODY must be counted. That's what I get for doing 4 gigs in 2 days. I am exhausted and a little brain dead today. LOL.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Today the Supreme Court rejected Texas Republicans' unconstitutional attempt at a power grab, by ruling that illegal aliens and non-citizens cannot be counted for the purpose of drawing legislative districts. Here is the punch line. Texas Republicans, who frequently state that the Constitution does not apply to non-citizens, attempted to use the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment here. LMAO.

And this was not a divided vote. It was unanimous. Another defeat for blatant political hackery and attempts to water down minority voting power. Keeping Texas as white as they can was a desperation move from a party that is slowly but surely losing power. All their little tricks and gerrymandering will only prolong the inevitable. Republicans only hope to stay viable in the next decade is to begin to embrace some of the same groups they have been relentlessly attacking. Good luck with that.

NOTE: Roberts and Ginsberg agreeing on something? Who would have thunk it? :mrgreen:

Article is here.

And here is the document of the actual decision.

Thing is, the Republicans can't help it - it's beyond their ability to do something about it. Remember, in 2006 the GOP in Congress voted almost in lockstep to reauthorize the Voting Right Act...but just a few years later (after a certain black guy was elected to the White House) they were almost in lockstep against it. In a recent 538 podcast, Nate Silver - the statistician who notably called all 50 states right in the 2012 election - stated that this has its roots in Nixon's "Southern Strategy"...which is what I've been saying for several years now. It's a grand example of the "law of unintended consequences".

What's happened, to put it in a nutshell, is that the GOP in Nixon's time never foresaw a time when America would become a "majority-minority" nation, when there would be more voting minorities than voting whites. They only saw what was important to them at the time: breaking up the Democrats' "Solid South" by appealing to the "negrophobes" (the racist whites) who held almost all the power in the South. And the GOP's plan worked very well indeed - instead of being the strongest base of the Democratic party, the Deep South is now the strongest base of the Republican party. Thing is, there's an old saying: "Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas." By welcoming the "negrophobes" into the GOP to such an extent that the Deep South is now the strongest base of the party, the overall nature of the party has been affected by what came with the Deep South: racism and televangelism. And for anyone who pretends racism isn't still a strong factor there, I need only point out how Mississippi did not finally ratify the 13th Amendment banning slavery until 2013 - yes, three years ago.

As I said above, this is beyond the ability of the GOP to do anything about the problem they face as a party. Why? Because what we're watching now is what happens to a powerful society that is going through a great demographic shift. The whites still hold the great majority of the socioeconomic power in the nation (as they have since the English established true and defensible colonies in North America)...but they see that power slowly - but inexorably - slipping away...and the more they perceive the power slipping away, the more they feel threatened by the "browning" of America, the more that a significant percentage of them will (metaphorically speaking) circle the wagons to preserve their own power base.

Many - and perhaps most - whites aren't so bothered by the demographic change...but there are still tens of millions of whites who "want their country back". Where this will all end, we can only guess. I think there's a real possibility that there will be some significant violence. I hope that when the tipping point comes, we're educated enough as a nation and as a people to proceed without real bloodshed.
 

Utility Man

Sidewalk Inspector
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
7,069
Reaction score
8,178
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What a joke..........'one person, one vote'


:doh
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
76,230
Reaction score
60,459
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
gerrymandering needs to be banned nationwide, and states that put obstacles in front of voting like long lines / limiting early voting should have control of their elections taken away from them temporarily and handled federally until they get their **** together. those kinds of practices are just shameful and undemocratic.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Can't really blame someone for objecting to counting people that are not eligible to vote when drawing voting districts. Is it really "one person, one vote" when you're counting people that are not eligible to vote when drawing voting districts?

I know, people will make this an issue about race but common sense would dictate that if you're going to be counting eggs you don't really count broken eggs along with whole eggs when determining how many eggs you have to sell at the local market.
 

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
15,862
Reaction score
6,699
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
gerrymandering needs to be banned nationwide, and states that put obstacles in front of voting like long lines / limiting early voting should have control of their elections taken away from them temporarily and handled federally until they get their **** together. those kinds of practices are just shameful and undemocratic.

How can you say this? Those long lines were caused by the federal funding being cut from county budgets, just like the cutback in early voting. Those 'responsible' Republican legislators and county boards are just trying to keep their budgets in line after they cut taxes for their residents. The same with reducing the number of offices where citizens can obtain the photo IDs which are only meant to stop voter fraud.









































(/sarcasm)
 

Gimmesometruth

Merry f'ing Xmas!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
30,601
Reaction score
6,765
Location
US Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Can't really blame someone for objecting to counting people that are not eligible to vote when drawing voting districts. Is it really "one person, one vote" when you're counting people that are not eligible to vote when drawing voting districts?

I know, people will make this an issue about race but common sense would dictate that if you're going to be counting eggs you don't really count broken eggs along with whole eggs when determining how many eggs you have to sell at the local market.
Representatives represent a total population in their district, not just those eligible to cast a vote.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
76,230
Reaction score
60,459
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How can you say this? Those long lines were caused by the federal funding being cut from county budgets, just like the cutback in early voting. Those 'responsible' Republican legislators and county boards are just trying to keep their budgets in line after they cut taxes for their residents. The same with reducing the number of offices where citizens can obtain the photo IDs which are only meant to stop voter fraud.









































(/sarcasm)

yep. pretty much.

i will say that it would suck if your side's winning strategy pretty much always included making it more difficult, annoying, and inconvenient to vote. i know that some are fine with that and spin it in various ways, but it would bother me personally if i had to defend it. in fact, i wouldn't defend it.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Representatives represent a total population in their district, not just those eligible to cast a vote.

Where it concerns kids that are citizens and felons that are citizens I agree. (though felons that are citizens should imo be allowed to vote period) Where it concerns illegal aliens, I don't. And southern states, particularly those along the border have a huge problem with illegal aliens and when drawing voting districts that needs to be accounted for. Otherwise "one person, one vote" doesn't mean much.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,961
Reaction score
17,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Can't really blame someone for objecting to counting people that are not eligible to vote when drawing voting districts. Is it really "one person, one vote" when you're counting people that are not eligible to vote when drawing voting districts?

I know, people will make this an issue about race but common sense would dictate that if you're going to be counting eggs you don't really count broken eggs along with whole eggs when determining how many eggs you have to sell at the local market.

It's a morally tricky proposition when you're not including or considering youth, felons, and people with significant cognitive disabilities when creating these districts under such a limited district system, but I think your point is still something worth considering.
 
Last edited:

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Can't really blame someone for objecting to counting people that are not eligible to vote when drawing voting districts. Is it really "one person, one vote" when you're counting people that are not eligible to vote when drawing voting districts?

I know, people will make this an issue about race but common sense would dictate that if you're going to be counting eggs you don't really count broken eggs along with whole eggs when determining how many eggs you have to sell at the local market.

That's not what is in the Constitution, which is supposed represent ALL people.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
58,912
Reaction score
45,750
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well, I'm torn on this!

It's no secret I'm no fan of the GOP, so when they get their butt kicked I'm usually all for it.

But put me in Kal'Stang's camp, here.

Yeah, the GOP are doing this for political reasons, they suck, and I'm glad they lost. But I do not believe voting districts should be predicated upon those here illegally. Kids, felons, and citizens who don't vote, are all Americans deserved of representation IMO. Those who sneak-in illegally, are not. I'm a bit in-the-middle on legal residents, so I'll temporarily take a pass there.
 

Gimmesometruth

Merry f'ing Xmas!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
30,601
Reaction score
6,765
Location
US Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Where it concerns kids that are citizens and felons that are citizens I agree. (though felons that are citizens should imo be allowed to vote period) Where it concerns illegal aliens, I don't. And southern states, particularly those along the border have a huge problem with illegal aliens and when drawing voting districts that needs to be accounted for. Otherwise "one person, one vote" doesn't mean much.
Evenwel v. Abbott was about apportionment based on registered voters, so it violates your stand on representation of children/felons.
 

Gimmesometruth

Merry f'ing Xmas!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
30,601
Reaction score
6,765
Location
US Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Something to note: According to the following source Texas has over 1.6 million illegal aliens living there. How much do you think that affects voting districts?

More illegal immigrants finding way to Texas
Texas, like AZ, has a long history of attempting to deny the vote of minority citizens....further, CA has a much larger foriegn national population than Texas. But again, this case still goes against your stand on all citizens being represented, districts being apportioned by citizen population.

Further still, foreign nationals are still protected by the Constitution, ergo, even they have representative interests
 

SocialD

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Today the Supreme Court rejected Texas Republicans' unconstitutional attempt at a power grab, by ruling that illegal aliens and non-citizens cannot be counted for the purpose of drawing legislative districts. Here is the punch line. Texas Republicans, who frequently state that the Constitution does not apply to non-citizens, attempted to use the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment here. LMAO.

And this was not a divided vote. It was unanimous. Another defeat for blatant political hackery and attempts to water down minority voting power. Keeping Texas as white as they can was a desperation move from a party that is slowly but surely losing power. All their little tricks and gerrymandering will only prolong the inevitable. Republicans only hope to stay viable in the next decade is to begin to embrace some of the same groups they have been relentlessly attacking. Good luck with that.

NOTE: Roberts and Ginsberg agreeing on something? Who would have thunk it? :mrgreen:

Article is here.

And here is the document of the actual decision.


SCOTUS , from what ive read, has about 1800 or more cases per year. a large percentage of them are unanimous decisions. we only hear about a very small percentage of them. So its not unusual for all justices to agree.
In this particular case, while there is logic that apportionment should be among eligible voters, the law says its on total population. So if they want to change it they will need to change the law. That was the ruling. pretty straight forward.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
15,390
Reaction score
5,501
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Can't really blame someone for objecting to counting people that are not eligible to vote when drawing voting districts. Is it really "one person, one vote" when you're counting people that are not eligible to vote when drawing voting districts? I know, people will make this an issue about race but common sense would dictate that if you're going to be counting eggs you don't really count broken eggs along with whole eggs when determining how many eggs you have to sell at the local market.

This isn't about race; its about one of the most fundamental rights we have in this country. This proposition boiled down to taxation without representation.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, I'm torn on this!

It's no secret I'm no fan of the GOP, so when they get their butt kicked I'm usually all for it.

But put me in Kal'Stang's camp, here.

Yeah, the GOP are doing this for political reasons, they suck, and I'm glad they lost. But I do not believe voting districts should be predicated upon those here illegally. Kids, felons, and citizens who don't vote, are all Americans deserved of representation IMO. Those who sneak-in illegally, are not. I'm a bit in-the-middle on legal residents, so I'll temporarily take a pass there.

Then amend the Constittution instead of passing illegal laws.
 
Top Bottom