- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Representatives represent a total population in their district, not just those eligible to cast a vote.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.
Moderator's Warning: |
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)
Representatives represent a total population in their district, not just those eligible to cast a vote.
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.
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.
Evenwel v. Abbott was about apportionment based on registered voters, so it violates your stand on representation of children/felons.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.
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.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
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.
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.
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.
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?