How should states measure population when drawing voter districts? (bias, election, elect)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why should anyone be excluded? Even slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person back in the day. This seems downright progressive in comparison to what you have proposed. The crime of illegals is that they do not have a little piece of paper. It is a status crime, similar to driving without a license. Illegals otherwise live and work in our communities like anyone else. Since the citizenship requirement applies only to federal elections, many towns and cities have moved toward allowing illegals to vote in municipal elections. This is a far more sensible direction to go in that what you have advocated here. Immigrants are not leaving. In fact many more will be coming. We need to stop behaving like little children over it.
Allowing non-citizens to be included in apportionment gives a biased executive added incentive to not enforce borders.
Well Justice Reynard32, as you should well know, it takes only 4 votes to get a case accepted, and they never disclose the details of that vote. Could have been 9/0 for all you know, and that would completely undermine your claim. More study for you!
Evenwel arrives at the court as a case of mandatory appellate jurisdiction. Look it up.
Allowing non-citizens to be included in apportionment gives a biased executive added incentive to not enforce borders.
Again, the people hoping to overcome practices directly established by the Constitution and enshrined in the current laws and norms of close to all 50 states are arch-conservative, hard-right factions and partisans who also busy themselves in trying to gut the Voting Rights Act and end Affirmative Action. These people are scared by the demographic changes that are sweeping the country just as Judis & Teixeira had predicted they would back in 2002. They needed to crush ACORN to suppress left-leaning votes. They needed to create Voter-ID laws for the same purpose. Now they wish to further shift political power away from areas that tend to oppose their policies and toward those areas that tend to support their policies. It's just another underhanded anti-American power-grab.
Evenwel arrives at the court as a case of mandatory appellate jurisdiction. Look it up.
No, somehow or other, I don't think I'll bother looking that up, I'll let you provide the evidence to support your claim.
FYI, nothing at SCOTUS is mandatory. Everything is by petition for cert. Now you you provide the evidence to the contrary.
It's just another underhanded anti-American power-grab.
Expecting that Presidential elections and how many house seats a state has are not going to be influenced by a foreigner that has entered this country illegally is an Anti-American power grab? You are going to be distinctly in the minority with your opinion left or right.
No, somehow or other, I don't think I'll bother looking that up, I'll let you provide the evidence to support your claim. FYI, nothing at SCOTUS is mandatory. Everything is by petition for cert. Now you you provide the evidence to the contrary.
[Ed] Blum first tried to get the Supreme Court interested in this issue in the 2001 case of Chen v. City of Houston. The Court declined to hear the case, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing a dissent from the denial of a writ of certiorari saying the issue deserved a fuller airing. Blum succeeded this time in the Evenwel case, probably because he got the case to come up on the Court’s rare mandatory appellate jurisdiction. (When a case comes up this way, as opposed to through a cert. petition, a decision for the Court not to hear the case is generally treated as a binding precedent.)
The above is from ScotusBlog. Though you plainly never read it, a link to it is found in your own OP. Perhaps you'll be able to discover which one all on your own???
Expecting that Presidential elections and how many house seats a state has are not going to be influenced by a foreigner that has entered this country illegally is an Anti-American power grab? You are going to be distinctly in the minority with your opinion left or right.
The case is another right-wing/Republican attempt to disenfranchise people who tend to support liberal ideas and vote for Democrats. It's plain old vote-suppression, and it's been going on for years. There is nothing more involved here than that.
[Ed] Blum first tried to get the Supreme Court interested in this issue in the 2001 case of Chen v. City of Houston. The Court declined to hear the case, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing a dissent from the denial of a writ of certiorari saying the issue deserved a fuller airing. Blum succeeded this time in the Evenwel case, probably because he got the case to come up on the Court’s rare mandatory appellate jurisdiction. (When a case comes up this way, as opposed to through a cert. petition, a decision for the Court not to hear the case is generally treated as a binding precedent.)
The above is from ScotusBlog. Though you plainly never read it, a link to it is found in your own OP. Perhaps you'll be able to discover which one all on your own???
Since you obviously know where to find the relevant text, but are much too petty and ungracious to share it with me and others, I have zero intention of looking for it at your behest.
Until you provide evidence to the contrary, it doesn't exist. When you do provide it, I'll acknowledge that you're correct.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me the fairest way would be to count potential voters -- so if someone could register but doesn't they still are counted, but on the other end children below voting age, illegal immigrants, etc. should not be counted.
Granted I'd support a registered voters approach as someone who usually support Republicans for partisan reasons but it wouldn't be imo the fairest approach. Counting illegal immigrants and whatnot is both against my interests and prima facie against the spirit of our democratic government so I'm pretty opposed to that.
Since you obviously know where to find the relevant text, but are much too petty and ungracious to share it with me and others, I have zero intention of looking for it at your behest.
What a grump. All because you waltzed out on a limb and then had it sawed off. Your own links contain the language I quoted -- the language that reveals your claims to have been bunk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
