I could see the court going either way with this one.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/us/supreme-court-to-weigh-meaning-of-one-person-one-vote.html?referrer=
Quote
Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of 'One Person One Vote'
By ADAM LIPTAK
MAY 26, 2015
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear a case that will answer a long-contested question about a bedrock principle of the American political system: the meaning of "one person one vote."
The court's ruling, expected in 2016, could be immensely consequential. Should the court agree with the two Texas voters who brought the case, its ruling would shift political power from cities to rural areas, a move that would benefit Republicans.
The court has never resolved whether voting districts should have the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters. Counting all people amplifies the voting power of places with large numbers of residents who cannot vote legally, including immigrants who are here legally but are not citizens, illegal immigrants, children and prisoners. Those places tend to be urban and to vote Democratic.
A ruling that districts must be based on equal numbers of voters would move political power away from cities, with their many immigrants and children, and toward older and more homogeneous rural areas.
Such a decision, said Richard H. Pildes, a law professor at New York University, "would be most significant in border states, like California, Texas, Arizona and Nevada, that have the largest proportions of noncitizens."
The Supreme Court over the past nearly 25 years has turned away at least three similar challenges, and many election law experts expressed surprise that the justices agreed to hear this one. But since Chief Justice John G. Roberts has led the court, it has been active in other voting cases.
In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, a closely divided court effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act.
The new case, Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, concerns state and local voting districts. But "the logic of the decision in Evenwel will likely carry over to congressional redistricting," said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine.
The case, a challenge to voting districts for the Texas Senate, was brought by two voters, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger. They are represented by the Project on Fair Representation, the small conservative advocacy group that successfully mounted the earlier challenge to the Voting Rights Act. It is also behind a pending challenge to affirmative action in admissions at the University of Texas at Austin.
In the new case, the challengers said their voting power had been diluted. "There are voters or potential voters in Texas whose Senate votes are worth approximately one and one-half times that of appellants," their brief said.
In a statement issued after the Supreme Court accepted their case, Ms. Evenwel and Mr. Pfenninger said they "hoped that the outcome of our lawsuit will compel Texas to equalize the number of eligible voters in each district."
Professor Hasen said their lawsuit was in tension with some conservative principles.
"It is highly ironic that conservatives, who usually support respect for precedents and states' rights, are bringing a case that if successful will not only upset decades-old case law but also restrict the kind of representation states may choose," he said.
In November, a three-judge panel of the Federal District Court in Austin dismissed the case, saying that "the Supreme Court has generally used total population as the metric of comparison." At the same time, the panel said, the Supreme Court has never required any particular standard. The choice, the panel said, belongs to the states.
A 1964 Supreme Court decision, Reynolds v. Sims, ruled that voting districts must contain very close to the same number of people. But the court did not say which people count.
Most state and local governments draw districts based on total population. If people who were ineligible to vote were evenly distributed, the difference between counting all people or counting only eligible voters would not matter. But demographic patterns vary widely.
Federal appeals courts have uniformly ruled that counting everyone is permissible, and one court has indicated that it is required.
In the process, though, several judges have acknowledged that the Supreme Court's decisions provide support for both approaches. The federal appeals court in New Orleans said the issue "presents a close question," partly because the Supreme Court had been "somewhat evasive in regard to which population must be equalized."
Judge Alex Kozinski, in a partial dissent from a decision of the federal appeals court in San Francisco, said there were respectable arguments on both sides.
On one theory, he said, counting everyone ensures "representational equality," with elected officials tending to the interests of the same number of people, whether they are voters or not.
On the other hand, he said, counting only eligible voters vindicates the principle that voters "hold the ultimate political power in our democracy." He concluded that the Supreme Court's decisions generally supported the second view.
Even if counting only adult citizens is the correct approach, there are practical obstacles. "A constitutional rule requiring equal numbers of citizens would necessitate a different kind of census than the one currently conducted," Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Stanford, wrote in 2011 in the Cardozo Law Review.
For now, he said, "the only relevant data available from the census gives ballpark figures, at best, and misleading and confusing estimates at worst."
In 2001, the Supreme Court turned down an opportunity to decide the question, in another case from Texas.
Justice Clarence Thomas objected. "We have never determined the relevant 'population' that states and localities must equally distribute among their districts," he wrote.
"The one-person-one-vote principle may, in the end, be of little consequence if we decide that each jurisdiction can choose its own measure of population," Justice Thomas added. "But as long as we sustain the one-person-one-vote principle, we have an obligation to explain to states and localities what it actually means."
In the new case, the Supreme Court may decide that states can determine for themselves which standard to use. Even such a ruling could have a major impact, Professor Pildes said.
"If the court leaves it to states to decide, we could see the politics of immigration come to affect the politics of redistricting even more," he said. "State legislatures would be given a green light to locate more power or less power in areas that have large geographic concentrations of noncitizens. Those areas would have more power if the rule is equality of residents and less power if it's equality of eligible voters."
Texas strikes a blow for democracy once again!
Wait why do cities have large numbers of prisoners and children? Aren't prisons usually in rural areas? Are cities known for having vast amounts of children? Weird.
If anything the current system is more undemocratic than the proposal. Had the OPOV system been used from the start, it would have greatly weakened slave states power within Congress. Not to mention it gave them no incentive to widen the franchise to slaves.
All in all, I support the proposal.
We could make things even worse by counting only those registered to vote.
I think there's more to districting than number of people or voters. Size of territories matters too, as well as a number of other things. Canada's districting method for rural areas is better than ours, on the whole.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 14, 2015, 07:16:21 PM
I think there's more to districting than number of people or voters. Size of territories matters too, as well as a number of other things. Canada's districting method for rural areas is better than ours, on the whole.
I don't see why empty space should be entitled to more representation in Congress.
:mad:
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2015, 05:10:30 PM
Wait why do cities have large numbers of prisoners and children? Aren't prisons usually in rural areas? Are cities known for having vast amounts of children? Weird.
Young people move away from rural areas for jobs. Old people retire to rural areas to free up money from their houses.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 14, 2015, 07:28:30 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 14, 2015, 07:16:21 PM
I think there's more to districting than number of people or voters. Size of territories matters too, as well as a number of other things. Canada's districting method for rural areas is better than ours, on the whole.
I don't see why empty space should be entitled to more representation in Congress.
Well, duh, you don't live where MiM lives.
It's difficult to represent a district where you have to travel 600 miles between your constituents. It's too much to ask of someone.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2015, 05:08:02 PM
I could see the court going either way with this one.
This is the same case you posted about a couple weeks ago ...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 14, 2015, 11:19:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2015, 05:08:02 PM
I could see the court going either way with this one.
This is the same case you posted about a couple weeks ago ...
He can't spend any time reading the "articles" he posts here if he is going to keep up with his shit-thread starting quota.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 14, 2015, 10:58:34 PM
It's difficult to represent a district where you have to travel 600 miles between your constituents. It's too much to ask of someone.
Alaska has gotta be tough.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 14, 2015, 10:58:34 PM
It's difficult to represent a district where you have to travel 600 miles between your constituents. It's too much to ask of someone.
I don't see any traveling between constituents by my rep. Maybe a couple TV ads, a couple flyers and a robocall come election time.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 14, 2015, 11:19:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2015, 05:08:02 PM
I could see the court going either way with this one.
This is the same case you posted about a couple weeks ago ...
I'm on so many forums it's hard to remember what I've post where. :blush:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2015, 01:38:06 AM
I'm on so many forums it's hard to remember what I've post where. :blush:
You're not a professional Russian troll by any chance? :shifty:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2015, 01:38:06 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 14, 2015, 11:19:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2015, 05:08:02 PM
I could see the court going either way with this one.
This is the same case you posted about a couple weeks ago ...
I'm on so many forums it's hard to remember what I've post where. :blush:
OK. but.
Late time you pitched it like it was an outrage that needed explaining. Different tone this time around.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 15, 2015, 01:41:30 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2015, 01:38:06 AM
I'm on so many forums it's hard to remember what I've post where. :blush:
You're not a professional Russian troll by any chance? :shifty:
He's not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2015, 10:36:54 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2015, 01:38:06 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 14, 2015, 11:19:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2015, 05:08:02 PM
I could see the court going either way with this one.
This is the same case you posted about a couple weeks ago ...
I'm on so many forums it's hard to remember what I've post where. :blush:
OK. but.
Late time you pitched it like it was an outrage that needed explaining. Different tone this time around.
I'm still against it, but the New York Times can make anything seem boring, thus influencing my commentary.
Will they next settle the meaning of "No woman no cry"?
Quote from: The Brain on June 15, 2015, 10:56:45 PM
Will they next settle the meaning of "No woman no cry"?
How about 2 legit 2 quit?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 15, 2015, 11:00:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 15, 2015, 10:56:45 PM
Will they next settle the meaning of "No woman no cry"?
How about 2 legit 2 quit?
What does REO Speedwagon mean when they say she takes it on the run? :hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 16, 2015, 12:31:23 AM
What does REO Speedwagon mean when they say she takes it on the run? :hmm:
I always wondered that too. :hmm:
It's a kinkier version of a three-legged race.
LOL Tim
The court rules in favor of the people! :showoff:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/29/418521823/supreme-court-backs-arizonas-redistricting-commission-targeting-gridlock
Quote
Supreme Court Backs Arizona's Redistricting Commission Targeting Gridlock
June 29, 201510:47 AM ET
Bill Chappell
U.S. states' efforts to counter extreme gerrymandering won a victory Monday, as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a bipartisan Arizona panel that draws the state's districts. The court's vote was 5-4; Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote the opinion for the majority, in which her citations included James Madison writing in The Federalist Papers.
"The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering," Ginsberg wrote, "and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have 'an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.' "
Ginsberg continued, quoting a 2005 gerrymandering case: "In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore 'the core principle of republican government,' namely, 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.' "
Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission was formed 15 years ago, after the state's voters approved Proposition 106 and amended the state's constitution to take redistricting power away from the Legislature (which later filed suit).
In his dissent, Roberts said that the majority's position "has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, and it contradicts precedents from both Congress and this Court."
Saying that if the people of Arizona want to change the electoral process, they should focus on passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Roberts concluded, "Unfortunately, today's decision will only discourage this democratic method of change."
As for the effects Arizona's commission has had, here's what Arizona Public Media reports:
"The independent commission drew boundaries after the 2000 census and again after the 2010 census. In the 2012 election, five Democrats and four Republicans were elected to Congress in Arizona. In 2014, five Republicans and four Democrats were elected."
The case could have effects far beyond Arizona; more than a dozen other states, including California, have adopted similar processes as they try to break up partisan gridlock that results from drawing polarized districts.
Today's ruling has been hotly anticipated, particularly ahead of the 2016 election cycle. The ruling "could affect as many as one-third of congressional districts," NPR's Jessica Taylor writes for It's All Politics.
A large part of the debate over the case hinged on one word: "legislature."
From the Constitution's clause on elections:
"The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof."
The two sides have argued over whether "legislature" in the clause can be interpreted to refer to voters who enact a law via ballot initiative.
When the case was argued back in March, the Arizona Legislature's lawyer, Paul Clement, said, "The whole idea of the Constitution was that we're going to form a republican government, that we can't have direct democracy."
The Constitution, Clement said, gave authority over elections to elected officials, not to the public. But Ginsberg and the rest of the majority disagreed, mentioning not only the efforts to combat gerrymandering but also dozens of voter initiatives that shape how Americans vote, such as mail-in ballots and voter ID laws.
But Chief Justice Roberts did not agree — and he cited the 1913 shift in how U.S. senators are chosen to show his disapproval. He wrote:
"Just over a century ago, Arizona became the second State in the Union to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment. That Amendment transferred power to choose United States Senators from the Legislature' of each State, Art. I, §3, to 'the people thereof.' The Amendment resulted from an arduous, decades-long campaign in which reformers across the country worked hard to garner approval from Congress and three-quarters of the States.
"What chumps! Didn't they realize that all they had to do was interpret the constitutional term 'the Legislature' to mean 'the people'? The Court today performs just such a magic trick with the Elections Clause."
Here's how NPR's Nina Totenberg described the case back in March:
"In a state with 35 percent registered Republicans, 35 percent Independents, and 30 percent Democrats, the congressional map the commission drew had four safe Republican seats, two safe Democratic seats, and three competitive districts.
"Infuriated Republican state legislators wanted a bigger slice of the pie, however, and after the Arizona Supreme Court frustrated their effort to fire the commission's chair, they challenged the commission as unconstitutional, appealing all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Update at 1:30 p.m. ET: Reactions To The Ruling
Attorney General Loretta Lynch says the ruling "vindicated the rights of voters who want their electoral districts drawn fairly, independently and without undue emphasis on partisan affiliation or political creed."
Calling the Arizona approach is "common-sense reform," the ACLU's Dale Ho says, "In essence, it says voters can keep the fox from guarding the henhouse."
"The Constitution is not a barrier to states who want to address the problem of partisan gerrymandering," says Wendy Weiser, who directs of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
Is this the one about whether illegals should be counted? If so, a surprisingly incomplete article from npr.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 06:57:40 PM
Is this the one about whether illegals should be counted? If so, a surprisingly incomplete article from npr.
Whoops, got my voting rights threads mixed up. :blush:
LOL Tim
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 10:50:03 PM
LOL Tim
I did a quick search and didn't bother to actually check the article in the opening post. Just posted this ine. :blush:
A unanimous ruling! Yay! :)
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/04/supreme-court-unanimously-upholds-one-person-one-vote-in-texas-case.html/
QuoteSupreme Court unanimously upholds 'one-person, one-vote' method to draw districts in Texas case
Bobby Blanchard
AUSTIN — The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Texas law that counts all residents, not just eligible voters, in drawing voting districts.
The case was brought last year by two Texans, Sue Evenwel of Mount Pleasant and Edward Pfenninger of Montgomery County, who argued that districts should be divided by the number of eligible voters. They argued the current system gave oversized political clout to cities and urban areas with bigger youth and immigrant populations that cannot vote.
Texas' Senate districts have vastly different populations when counting just eligible voters. Political districts are required to be about equal in population.
Had the conservative-backed challenge to the law been victorious, advocacy groups argued, it would have harmed minority groups in Texas.
But the court rejected the challenge to Texas' method, which is used by all 50 states.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the majority opinion, said that the current method was constitutionally sound.
"Jurisdictions may design state and local legislative districts with equal total populations, we hold; they are not obliged to equalize voter populations," Ginsburg wrote. "Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries."
She went on to write that the challengers had "shown no reason for the court to disturb this longstanding use of total population."
"As history, precedent, and practice demonstrate, it is plainly permissible for jurisdictions to measure equalization by the total population of state and local legislative districts," Ginsburg wrote.
Advocacy groups celebrated Monday, and political analysts called the ruling a victory for Democrats.
"With this ruling, jurisdictions will and must continue to redraw district boundaries in an inclusive manner while adhering to the fundamental principle of one person, one vote," said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "Today's decision renders null and void efforts to marginalize minority communities from having an equal seat at the table in our political process."
ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro praised the decision, saying "government actions affect everyone, not just eligible voters."
"There is a reason that every state has chosen to apportion its state legislative districts based on total population," Shapiro said, "The argument that states are forbidden from treating everyone equally for redistricting purposes never made any constitutional sense and was properly rejected today by a unanimous Supreme Court."
In a statement, Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa called the ruling a victory for democracy.
"For decades, the democratic principle of 'one person, one vote' has ensured everyone in America, regardless of who they are or where they live, is entitled to equal representation," Hinojosa said.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement that he was pleased with the ruling.
"My office is committed to defending the Constitution and ensuring the state Legislature, representing the citizens, continues to have the freedom to ensure voting rights consistent with the Constitution," Paxton said.
Interesting, so the American philosophy is even though you might not have the right to vote, you still have the right to representation. Can't say I'm against that.
That said, Spain uses the same philosophy and still manages to over-represent rural areas over cities (our proportional system gives all provinces a minimum amount of MPs, regardless of population). It's supposed to help out fighting rural neglect, but in practice just props up big parties and gives them a big bag of captive vote. We really need to reform our electoral system.
Quote from: celedhring on April 05, 2016, 03:27:21 AM
Interesting, so the American philosophy is even though you might not have the right to vote, you still have the right to representation. Can't say I'm against that.
That said, Spain uses the same philosophy and still manages to over-represent rural areas over cities (our proportional system gives all provinces a minimum amount of MPs, regardless of population). It's supposed to help out fighting rural neglect, but in practice just props up big parties and gives them a big bag of captive vote. We really need to reform our electoral system.
it is unavoidable that some rural areas will be over represented in a democracy. And besides, even if a big city has theoritically less MPs to represent the population than rural areas, it is simply untrue in practice. Say, Montreal. It's under represented. However, when they want more funding for public transit, a new highway, a new bridge, when they don't want to pay for it with a toll, they can count on 30-40 MPs to represent them. When a rural area wants a dangerous road to be repaired/redone, if we want an highway because there's a lot of accidents that could be avoided, we have exactly 1, maybe 2 if we count the Federel level MPs working for us. And when an MP covers 1/3 of the territory, you can see why some distant communties become neglected. No roads, a part-time often broken ferry, no hospitals, a doctor visit once per month, etc, etc.