Texas Voting Case to go Before SCOTUS

[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.

Aren't the voting ineligible entitled to representation?

yes they are, the question is when it comes to said representation, should they bolster the voting power of those eligible to vote in their district. They would still be represented, but the voting power of the representative in the district would be based on eligible voters, not total population.

The interesting part of this is how the 14 amendment works in this situation. The U.S. Senate is the definition of skewed representation, but since the 14th applies to the States and not the Federal government, it doesn't apply in that situation.

 

[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!

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.

Aren't the voting ineligible entitled to representation?

Aren't the voting ineligible entitled to representation?

Illegals are entitled to representation, back in their home country. Not here.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, this is serious. I want you think about the implications of counting non-eligible persons for electoral proportionment.

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?

It's working out pretty well for them in sanctuary cities run by regressives.

If illegals were counted, then we would see more Republican Congressmen. And that would not work out well for immigrants.

It would be advantageous to the GOP to count illegals, just as it was advantageous to the South to count slaves.

If you don't believe me, contact the census bureau, I'm very sure they will give you the same answer they did me. They count everyone for representation.

BULLSHIT. Many people don't want to be counted and hence are not.

Seriously, that the best you got? LMAO

Facts seem to blind you and strike you dumb (that is unable to formulate a response) and leave you unwilling to search the debate back in 2010 which might elucidate even the most ardent RW Hack (though they will never admit to it); fact, the R's cannot win the hearts and minds of a majority of our citizens, and thus need to resort to lies, half-truths, rumors, character assassination, voter suppression, propaganda and hate and fear.

Doubt that, read the posts from Crazy Right Winger's, especially those who believe all of propaganda and are too (be nice wry) ignorant and vote against their self interest.

 

[g5000]

Thought experiment:

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

Take it from there.

The move.

No, this is serious. I want you think about the implications of counting non-eligible persons for electoral proportionment.

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?

It's working out pretty well for them in sanctuary cities run by regressives.

If illegals were counted, then we would see more Republican Congressmen. And that would not work out well for immigrants.

It would be advantageous to the GOP to count illegals, just as it was advantageous to the South to count slaves.

If you don't believe me, contact the census bureau, I'm very sure they will give you the same answer they did me. They count everyone for representation.

Actually, they don't count everyone. They do statistical sampling.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

It would shift representation away from districts with ineligible voters, and towards ones with more eligible voters by percentage.

And our nation has always been a constitutional republic. If you notice most countries that have to say they are "Democratic" usually aren't.

WE aren't most countries, and we the people do elect our representatives and the Electoral College democratically, under the law. The point being Conservatives fear the mob, they laud the power elite and they reject the principles upon which our nation was "conceived and dedicated".

The two terms are not mutually exclusive, Our constitution limits our democracy, (true democracy being nothing more than mob rule at its worst).

And in this case what they are saying is the mob that cannot vote cannot count towards figuring out representation.

In some areas this will hurt republicans as well, just ask those upstate NY counties who get to currently count their prisoner population (most of whom are actually from NYC).

You've convoluted the issue. No one votes on the census. So voters, non voters, non citizens here legally or not, should all be counted.

Why, because voters and non voters (children, resident aliens, guest workers, felons, etc. and those here illegally) use local & state government services.

Unless we know the numbers of and demographics in each district the apportionment of resources may go to areas less in need than those in desperate need.

The census was politicized intentionally by the Republican's, something with which will create information gaps for decades into the future and have a negative effect on residents for their life-time.

Power tends to corrupt, anyone who has watched the H. of Rep. since January 2011 and doesn't admit to the wisdom of Lord Acton's remark are liars or fools.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The move.

No, this is serious. I want you think about the implications of counting non-eligible persons for electoral proportionment.

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?

It's working out pretty well for them in sanctuary cities run by regressives.

If illegals were counted, then we would see more Republican Congressmen. And that would not work out well for immigrants.

It would be advantageous to the GOP to count illegals, just as it was advantageous to the South to count slaves.

If you don't believe me, contact the census bureau, I'm very sure they will give you the same answer they did me. They count everyone for representation.

Actually, they don't count everyone. They do statistical sampling.

That was the disagreement in 2010, the D's wanted statistical sampling and the R's said no way. The R' got there way, and via redistricting and gerrymandering have increased their numbers in State Legislatures and in the H. or Rep.

 

[martybegan]

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.

It would shift representation away from districts with ineligible voters, and towards ones with more eligible voters by percentage.

And our nation has always been a constitutional republic. If you notice most countries that have to say they are "Democratic" usually aren't.

WE aren't most countries, and we the people do elect our representatives and the Electoral College democratically, under the law. The point being Conservatives fear the mob, they laud the power elite and they reject the principles upon which our nation was "conceived and dedicated".

The two terms are not mutually exclusive, Our constitution limits our democracy, (true democracy being nothing more than mob rule at its worst).

And in this case what they are saying is the mob that cannot vote cannot count towards figuring out representation.

In some areas this will hurt republicans as well, just ask those upstate NY counties who get to currently count their prisoner population (most of whom are actually from NYC).

You've convoluted the issue. No one votes on the census. So voters, non voters, non citizens here legally or not, should all be counted.

Why, because voters and non voters (children, resident aliens, guest workers, felons, etc. and those here illegally) use local & state government services.

Unless we know the numbers of and demographics in each district the apportionment of resources may go to areas less in need than those in desperate need.

The census was politicized intentionally by the Republican's, something with which will create information gaps for decades into the future and have a negative effect on residents for their life-time.

Power tends to corrupt, anyone who has watched the H. of Rep. since January 2011 and doesn't admit to the wisdom of Lord Acton's remark are liars or fools.

The question is if that part of the 14th amendment modifies the requirement to proportion representation found in the original document. Congress may decide how many each state gets, but the states decide how to break up their districts, and the States are bound by the 14th even if the Feds can ignore it.

The rest of your discussion is on results, I am talking process here.

 

[martybegan]

No, this is serious. I want you think about the implications of counting non-eligible persons for electoral proportionment.

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?

It's working out pretty well for them in sanctuary cities run by regressives.

If illegals were counted, then we would see more Republican Congressmen. And that would not work out well for immigrants.

It would be advantageous to the GOP to count illegals, just as it was advantageous to the South to count slaves.

If you don't believe me, contact the census bureau, I'm very sure they will give you the same answer they did me. They count everyone for representation.

Actually, they don't count everyone. They do statistical sampling.

That was the disagreement in 2010, the D's wanted statistical sampling and the R's said no way. The R' got there way, and via redistricting and gerrymandering have increased their numbers in State Legislatures and in the H. or Rep.

So the Dems didn't get their method of cheating, so they accuse republicans of cheating, even though they do the same exact thing in legislatures they control.

 

[OKTexas]

The move.

No, this is serious. I want you think about the implications of counting non-eligible persons for electoral proportionment.

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?

It's working out pretty well for them in sanctuary cities run by regressives.

If illegals were counted, then we would see more Republican Congressmen. And that would not work out well for immigrants.

It would be advantageous to the GOP to count illegals, just as it was advantageous to the South to count slaves.

If you don't believe me, contact the census bureau, I'm very sure they will give you the same answer they did me. They count everyone for representation.

Actually, they don't count everyone. They do statistical sampling.

You mean they make assumptions that certain groups aren't responding to the questionnaires and make estimates. Ever thought the census bureau's job is to count actual noses and not make assumptions?