How should states measure population when drawing voter districts? (house seat, Representatives, Congress)
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.
Evenwel v. Abbott
The justices will also be tasked with deciding how states should measure population when drawing voter districts, in a case with major political implications.
In this case, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger claim their votes for state Senate representation count less than those in bigger districts because the state used total population to draw the voting districts instead of voting-age population.
A lower court held that the “one-person, one-vote” principal allows states to use total population in drawing district lines. Now the Supreme Court will need to decide if the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment requires states to user voter population instead.
Issue: Whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “one-person, one-vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter population, when apportioning state legislative districts.
This would make a huge difference for communities with a large population of upper middle-age/senior citizens. I can see valid argument for both sides, however since the constitution states it is for valid voters, that is what the states should use also. It is not like the children are allowed to vote. Why should their parents get more representation than a senior citizen family?
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
The Constitution itself uses the number of persons (or whole persons) in several instances. It would seem therefore that it cannot be that such a method is impermissible. But why then did the Court take up the case? The conservative majority has a marked and activist propensity to "legislate from the bench," so we may just have to wait to see what they have up their sleeves on this case.
On basic principles it would make sense to me to use "elegible voters" as the criteron. That picks up adults vs children but does not rely on whether the individual is an active voter or even a registered voter, which is clearly not the point.
The conservative majority has a marked and activist propensity to "legislate from the bench,"
It wasn't the conservative majority that foisted gay marriage, abortion on demand, etc. etc. etc. on us.
As to the topic of this thread, I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that the larger point is that we are figuring out how to elect representatives to Congress -- whose job it is to represent EVERYONE in their respective districts, not just the registered voters. So I would think that counting the total number of persons would be the better way to go.
So I would think that counting the total number of persons would be the better way to go.
We should be excluding illegal immigrants from this count, it was quite a surprise to me but they are not. It's like gerrymandering on steroids at a national level. A recent study estimates California has 5 extra house seats thus 5 extra electoral votes. Neither is acceptable and perhaps we should consider straightening that out before worrying about individual districts.
It wasn't the conservative majority that foisted gay marriage, abortion on demand, etc. etc. etc. on us.
Then that would have nothing to do with conservative majority's having a marked and activist propensity to "legislate from the bench."
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man
As to the topic of this thread, I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that the larger point is that we are figuring out how to elect representatives to Congress -- whose job it is to represent EVERYONE in their respective districts, not just the registered voters. So I would think that counting the total number of persons would be the better way to go.
Which for fifty years has been the standard. But thanks to some legal maneuvering, the Court will now take up a case proposing to change the rules. Those changes would of course weaken urban areas and voters and strengthen rural areas and voters. It's basically just a back door Republican power grab.
We should be excluding illegal immigrants from this count, it was quite a surprise to me but they are not.
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.
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.
Exactly why would criminal aliens be counted for representation purposes? Do you give a burglar in your home the full rights and access to say your bank statement and passport? Your car? Your food? Excuse me, but the presence of criminals doesn't bear rewarding a specific area with extra power and impact in the legislature. Or to be more exact, areas that have few criminals shouldn't be penalized with reduced representation.
Because my state and five others have lost both a house seat and an electoral college vote, thus someone that is living in this country illegally is altering both the legislative and election process. Both my vote and the power of my State has been diminished by someone that is living here illegally. That is not acceptable to me and I can guarantee it would not be acceptable to the vast majority of other citizens.
Quote:
many towns and cities have moved toward allowing illegals to vote in municipal elections.
If California and cities like San Francisco want to roll out the red carpet for illegal aliens I can care less. This in no way should in no way should be affecting the legislative process and national elections.
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.
