Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
In 1989, the Supreme Court of the United States declared in Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris that the Board of Estimate was unconstitutional on the grounds that the city's most populous borough (Brooklyn) had no greater effective representation on the board than the city's least populous borough (Staten Island), this arrangement being a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment'sEqual Protection Clause pursuant to the high court's 1964 "one man, one vote" decision (Reynolds v. Sims). [2]
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.
While these cases still dealt with population instead of eligible voters, the concepts seem similar.
While these cases still dealt with population instead of eligible voters, the concepts seem similar.
Except that the plaintiffs are specifically positing an oppositional relationship between population vs eligible voters. Whereas all precedent and law has always insisted on apportionment based on population, the plaintiffs in the new case want to court to come up with a whole brand new system.
Regardless of whether or not the system suggested by the plaintiffs is a good one, it would require a constitutional amendment.
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.
In reference to the 14th Amendment, here is the 19th:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
So, take the word "male" in the 14th and replace it with "person". You now have the stipulation that districts shall be apportioned by the number of persons 21 years of age - and I'm certain there's another reducing the age to 18.
IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT MINORS OR NON-CITIZENS
While these cases still dealt with population instead of eligible voters, the concepts seem similar.
Except that the plaintiffs are specifically positing an oppositional relationship between population vs eligible voters. Whereas all precedent and law has always insisted on apportionment based on population, the plaintiffs in the new case want to court to come up with a whole brand new system.
Regardless of whether or not the system suggested by the plaintiffs is a good one, it would require a constitutional amendment.
It was population, plus 3/5 of slaves, minus Indians not taxed. This was all before the 14th amendment mandated equal protection under the law, and the Reynolds case mandated one person one vote.
I still don't have an opinion on this yet, but considering progressives love making things up using the 14th amendment, why should people get butt hurt if the right tries the same thing?
This is why I argue against massive judicial latitude when it comes to interpreting the constitution.
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.
Well why don't you educate me, I quoted the Constitution, so far you got nothing but BS.
While these cases still dealt with population instead of eligible voters, the concepts seem similar.
Except that the plaintiffs are specifically positing an oppositional relationship between population vs eligible voters. Whereas all precedent and law has always insisted on apportionment based on population, the plaintiffs in the new case want to court to come up with a whole brand new system.
Regardless of whether or not the system suggested by the plaintiffs is a good one, it would require a constitutional amendment.
It was population, plus 3/5 of slaves, minus Indians not taxed. This was all before the 14th amendment mandated equal protection under the law, and the Reynolds case mandated one person one vote.
I still don't have an opinion on this yet, but considering progressives love making things up using the 14th amendment, why should people get butt hurt if the right tries the same thing?
This is why I argue against massive judicial latitude when it comes to interpreting the constitution.
The Reynolds cased dealt with legislative districts of 3 vs 3000. And again, the criterion used was to apportion based on population, not voter registry.
While these cases still dealt with population instead of eligible voters, the concepts seem similar.
Except that the plaintiffs are specifically positing an oppositional relationship between population vs eligible voters. Whereas all precedent and law has always insisted on apportionment based on population, the plaintiffs in the new case want to court to come up with a whole brand new system.
Regardless of whether or not the system suggested by the plaintiffs is a good one, it would require a constitutional amendment.
It was population, plus 3/5 of slaves, minus Indians not taxed. This was all before the 14th amendment mandated equal protection under the law, and the Reynolds case mandated one person one vote.
I still don't have an opinion on this yet, but considering progressives love making things up using the 14th amendment, why should people get butt hurt if the right tries the same thing?
This is why I argue against massive judicial latitude when it comes to interpreting the constitution.
The Reynolds cased dealt with legislative districts of 3 vs 3000. And again, the criterion used was to apportion based on population, not voter registry.
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.
Well why don't you educate me, I quoted the Constitution, so far you got nothing but BS.
I don't think it's possible for anyone to educate you. Can't fix stupid.
But here's a hint: This isn't about Congressional districts.
While these cases still dealt with population instead of eligible voters, the concepts seem similar.
Except that the plaintiffs are specifically positing an oppositional relationship between population vs eligible voters. Whereas all precedent and law has always insisted on apportionment based on population, the plaintiffs in the new case want to court to come up with a whole brand new system.
Regardless of whether or not the system suggested by the plaintiffs is a good one, it would require a constitutional amendment.
It was population, plus 3/5 of slaves, minus Indians not taxed. This was all before the 14th amendment mandated equal protection under the law, and the Reynolds case mandated one person one vote.
I still don't have an opinion on this yet, but considering progressives love making things up using the 14th amendment, why should people get butt hurt if the right tries the same thing?
This is why I argue against massive judicial latitude when it comes to interpreting the constitution.
The Reynolds cased dealt with legislative districts of 3 vs 3000. And again, the criterion used was to apportion based on population, not voter registry.
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.
While these cases still dealt with population instead of eligible voters, the concepts seem similar.
Except that the plaintiffs are specifically positing an oppositional relationship between population vs eligible voters. Whereas all precedent and law has always insisted on apportionment based on population, the plaintiffs in the new case want to court to come up with a whole brand new system.
Regardless of whether or not the system suggested by the plaintiffs is a good one, it would require a constitutional amendment.
It was population, plus 3/5 of slaves, minus Indians not taxed. This was all before the 14th amendment mandated equal protection under the law, and the Reynolds case mandated one person one vote.
I still don't have an opinion on this yet, but considering progressives love making things up using the 14th amendment, why should people get butt hurt if the right tries the same thing?
This is why I argue against massive judicial latitude when it comes to interpreting the constitution.
The Reynolds cased dealt with legislative districts of 3 vs 3000. And again, the criterion used was to apportion based on population, not voter registry.
because that wasn't the question being asked. What is now being asked is does "one person, one vote" apply to the voter or does it not, and it applies to the population when apportioning voter representation.
No, this is serious. I want you think about the implications of counting non-eligible persons for electoral proportionment.Thought experiment: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.
A voting district with 200,000 illegal immigrants and two scared white citizens of Fox Nation.
Take it from there.
The move.
While these cases still dealt with population instead of eligible voters, the concepts seem similar.
Except that the plaintiffs are specifically positing an oppositional relationship between population vs eligible voters. Whereas all precedent and law has always insisted on apportionment based on population, the plaintiffs in the new case want to court to come up with a whole brand new system.
Regardless of whether or not the system suggested by the plaintiffs is a good one, it would require a constitutional amendment.
It was population, plus 3/5 of slaves, minus Indians not taxed. This was all before the 14th amendment mandated equal protection under the law, and the Reynolds case mandated one person one vote.
I still don't have an opinion on this yet, but considering progressives love making things up using the 14th amendment, why should people get butt hurt if the right tries the same thing?
This is why I argue against massive judicial latitude when it comes to interpreting the constitution.
The Reynolds cased dealt with legislative districts of 3 vs 3000. And again, the criterion used was to apportion based on population, not voter registry.
because that wasn't the question being asked. What is now being asked is does "one person, one vote" apply to the voter or does it not, and it applies to the population when apportioning voter representation.
correct. And the consequences of this might be what? Think through it and consider why the right wanted every person counted in the last census, knowing this would aid them in gerrymandering (this also requires thought and some history): See;
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com
The issue is all about the party which represents the few, gaining the most number of seats in the H. of Rep. and their State Legislatures.
It is anti democratic; of course that is not a surprise since they have tried to change the description of our nation from a democratic republic to a constitutional republic, and pretend to know what the original intent of those dead for 200 years or so really meant.
No, this is serious. I want you think about the implications of counting non-eligible persons for electoral proportionment.Thought experiment: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.
A voting district with 200,000 illegal immigrants and two scared white citizens of Fox Nation.
Take it from there.
The move.
If you count them, it actually means creating more districts where a smaller number of citizens have political control over an immigrant population.
How do you think that will work out for the immigrants?
