Posted on 12/08/2015 8:29:15 AM PST by NRx
The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, will address a question many thought had been settled long ago: What is the meaning of the principle of “one person, one vote�
The principle, rooted in cases from the 1960s that revolutionized democratic representation in the United States, applies to the entire American political system aside from the Senate, where voters from states with small populations have vastly more voting power than those with large ones. Everywhere else, voting districts must have very close to the same populations.
But the Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on who must be counted: all residents or just eligible voters? Continue reading the main story Related Coverage
Q. and A.: Examining a Voting Rights CaseDEC. 8, 2015 The John J. Moran Medium Security Prison in Cranston, R.I. A lawsuit filed in that state by the American Civil Liberties Union objects to counting prisoners when drawing voting districts. Sidebar: A.C.L.U.’s Own Arguments May Work Against It in Voting Rights CaseOCT. 12, 2015 Voting booths in Houston. Two Texas plaintiffs are challenging State Senate districts apportioned by the number of residents rather than eligible voters, saying it dilutes their voting power. Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote’MAY 26, 2015
The difference matters, because people who are not eligible to vote — children, immigrants here legally who are not citizens, unauthorized immigrants, people disenfranchised for committing felonies, prisoners — are not spread evenly across the country. With the exception of prisoners, they tend to be concentrated in urban areas.
Their presence amplifies the voting power of people eligible to vote in urban areas, usually helping Democrats. Rural areas that lean Republican, by contrast, usually have higher percentages of residents eligible to vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Obama will have the world vote Democrat in US elections
WTF does it matter? Dems vote multiple times (including the dead) with impunity, without fear of retribution.
Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940 messed up state house all over the country.
I’ll watch this, but I’m not hopeful...
One ballot per legally registered voter, period!
The Supreme Court makes up its own law.
This might also bear on the attempt by Hawaiians to hold a plebiscite on tribal recognition for natives that bars non-natives from voting, even though the non-natives will pay taxes to support the various social programs that come with the designation.
Exactly, quit counting children and other non-voters.
I’m glad we’re getting rid of the party line vote in Michigan. The way the democrats are screeching about it you just know its going to hurt them.
The difference matters, because people who are not eligible to vote -- children, immigrants here legally who are not citizens, unauthorized immigrants, people disenfranchised for committing felonies, prisoners -- are not spread evenly across the country. With the exception of prisoners, they tend to be concentrated in urban areas.Their presence amplifies the voting power of people eligible to vote in urban areas, usually helping Democrats. Rural areas that lean Republican, by contrast, usually have higher percentages of residents eligible to vote.
Sure looks like recent sympathetic campaigns in support of open borders to show compassion for illegals, and particularly migrant illegal children was a plan to alter the 2016 election, doesn't it?
Logically we can’t give votes to people who are present but not citizens because we have no proof they have anything but their own needs in mind when they vote, not those of the country they are present in.
“The Supreme Court makes up its own law.”
What I know about the supreme court is that it is a political activist lawless court that will pretty much always make the wrong decision. Having anything going to the supreme court is pretty much a guarantee that we as a nation are about to take a giant step into the abyss.
Property owners only - according to the original constitutional intent.
Something almost as effective is certainly conceivable with the right moves.
A community organizer need only import a crowd of "unauthorized immigrants" in key areas. Of course, one could argue that very effort has been under way for some time.
Theres no way judges will say that non voters should have no representation which is exactly what a decision like that would bring about. An elected rep would hold allegiance to a small group of people in many cases.
The Electoral College is what keeps us from rule by a tyrannical majority.
Music to my ears!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.