Texas Voting Case to go Before SCOTUS

[longknife]

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

 

[depotoo]

This will be interesting to see play out.

 

[SwimExpert]

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

 

[g5000]

Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once?

Where did you get this idea from?

 

[g5000]

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

Thought experiment:

A voting district with 200,000 illegal immigrants and two scared white citizens of Fox Nation.

Take it from there.

 

[SwimExpert]

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

Thought experiment:

A voting district with 200,000 illegal immigrants and two scared white citizens of Fox Nation.

Take it from there.

The move.

 

[martybegan]

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

I think they are angling for it under "equal protection under the law", the phrase the progressives often run to when they want a court to fight their battle for them. What they seem to be arguing is if you take a district of all eligible voters, say 100, and a district with 100 eligible voters, but 200 people, and you apportion legislative power based on population, those 100 voters in the non-voter containing district's votes outweigh the other districts votes.

 

[OKTexas]

Your answer is here in the 14th Amendment, Section 2.

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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The census bureau admittedly refuses to follow this section of the Constitution, and only reports whole numbers for establishing the numbers of representatives for each state.

 

[OKTexas]

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

Wrong!

 

[martybegan]

Your answer is here in the 14th Amendment, Section 2.

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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The census bureau admittedly refuses to follow this section of the Constitution, and only reports whole numbers for establishing the numbers of representatives for each state.

I would assume that using this interpretation would have to take into account the subsequent amendments expanding the franchise to 18 year olds, and women, correct?

 

[SwimExpert]

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

Wrong!

We're waiting with bated breath.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This will be interesting to see play out.

The take away is the Republican Party represents the few, the white and financially well off; R's do not want those they don't represent to be counted or to vote, and by

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

Well said!

 

[martybegan]

This will be interesting to see play out.

The take away is the Republican Party represents the few, the white and financially well off; R's do not want those they don't represent to be counted or to vote, and by

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

Well said!

The people who wouldn't be counted are not able to vote anyway. It's an interesting interpretation, one I do not have a view on as of yet.

 

[depotoo]

So you wish to make others believe. What we want is for eligible, alive citizens to vote, and only once, at that.

This will be interesting to see play out.

The take away is the Republican Party represents the few, the white and financially well off; R's do not want those they don't represent to be counted or to vote, and by

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

Well said!

 

[martybegan]

So you wish to make others believe. What we want is for eligible citizens to vote, and only once, at that.

This will be interesting to see play out.

The take away is the Republican Party represents the few, the white and financially well off; R's do not want those they don't represent to be counted or to vote, and by

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

Well said!

The case actually appears to go beyond that. What the crux of the issue is that when it comes to allocating representatives based on population, areas with a high number of non-voters tend to get more clout, on a per voter basis, than areas without a lot of non voters, non voters being defined as those not eligible, either due to citizenship, felon status, or minor status.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This will be interesting to see play out.

The take away is the Republican Party represents the few, the white and financially well off; R's do not want those they don't represent to be counted or to vote, and by

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

Well said!

R's do not want those they don't represent to be counted or to vote

Yes, illegal aliens shouldn't be counted and shouldn't vote.

 

[OKTexas]

Your answer is here in the 14th Amendment, Section 2.

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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The census bureau admittedly refuses to follow this section of the Constitution, and only reports whole numbers for establishing the numbers of representatives for each state.

I would assume that using this interpretation would have to take into account the subsequent amendments expanding the franchise to 18 year olds, and women, correct?

Yep, but none of the subsequent amendment alter the CITIZEN ELIGIBLE VOTER REQUIREMENT for representation.

 

[OKTexas]

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

Wrong!

We're waiting with bated breath.

See posts 8 & 17.

 

[SwimExpert]

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

I think they are angling for it under "equal protection under the law", the phrase the progressives often run to when they want a court to fight their battle for them. What they seem to be arguing is if you take a district of all eligible voters, say 100, and a district with 100 eligible voters, but 200 people, and you apportion legislative power based on population, those 100 voters in the non-voter containing district's votes outweigh the other districts votes.

Yeah, kinda. Except that it's more about the districts having unequal numbers of voters. Think of it more as taking one urban district and dividing it up into four voting districts based on its population. Those districts turn out to be liberal districts where the voters elect Democrats. But each of the four districts has relatively few eligible voters. So those voters have a greater voice in the legislature, according to the plaintiffs' argument. They want those four districts to be combined to one district.

The problem is that nothing in the constitution requires all voting districts to have an equal number of voters. And in fact, apportioning districts to the states makes it effectively impossible to create districts that will all have an equal number of voters. It should be pointed out that this case does not refer to districting for federal Congress. It has to do with state districting. The plaintiffs are trying to invoke Supreme Court precedents to create an alleged federal question that might apply to state matters. But, they will fail because the federal examples which most relevant make the plaintiff's claims absurd to the highest.

 

[SwimExpert]

Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.

And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.

I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network

The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.

In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.

Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.

Wrong!

We're waiting with bated breath.

See posts 8 & 17.

You're so far out in left field you may as well be in China. Sit this one out before you hurt yourself.