Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumTexas Tries To Redefine “Personhood” To Keep Blacks and Hispanics From Voting
For a long time, Republicans have been hard at work in trying to prevent Black and Hispanic voters from taking to the polls on election day. Now, the Supreme Court is ruling on a case that could change the way we look at voting districts in the worse way imaginable.
Ring of Fires Mike Papantonio and Farron Cousins discuss this.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Shameful.
yuiyoshida
(41,878 posts)seriously.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Response to GoLeft TV (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Twice!
Response to blackspade (Reply #8)
Name removed Message auto-removed
blackspade
(10,056 posts)It didn't help that the State party ran two super weak conservaDems.....
LiberalArkie
(15,747 posts)is a voter.
dembotoz
(16,879 posts)if the gop does not consider you to be a person til you are 18 than how can you be a person inside the womb
blackspade
(10,056 posts)The GOP is the Trump party.
The GOP is trying to form an apartheid state so that they and their rich donors stay in power despite the changing demographics.
It never works in the long run.
Ford_Prefect
(7,949 posts)It is the responsibility of all members of congress to look out for the welfare of every American citizen. Citizenship is conveyed by birth, by statute, and by migration status. It is likewise held that all American citizens have equal right to citizenship, its protections, benefits and obligations. The states may not decide for themselves who may be an American citizen. That is the purview of the Congress alone in line with the Constitution.
To so reduce the status of non-voting Americans is to diminish their right to Life, Liberty, The Pursuit of Happiness, and Equal Justice under the law, and their access to the same. It would also create a special class of persons who have fewer rights than other citizens for no apparent reason. The Supreme Court has time and again ruled against such partitions.
The next diminution will be by tax payment. IE: IF you hold no property you have not paid suitable taxes to receive service by the Government. Therefore children and renters have no right to expect service of any kind from government agencies, the courts,the police, the Army, the legislature or the president. You don't get to play if you don't pay for it. By the same token if you pay more you should get more from Government.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)This starts with the Second Section of the 14th Amendment:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
The first sentence says the number of Federal Representatives per state shall be set by Total Population, but the second sentence then adds a clause that uses the term "Vote". Thus the second sentence implies Congress was looking at VOTERS when it came to Congressional Districts NOT Total population.
The Plaintiff/Appellants in this case are saying that the Court has long adopted the term "Voter" to be what is protected by the 14th amendment NOT total population and thus any district should include the same number of VOTERS not the same number of people. The Plaintiffs even cite the "One man, One Vote" Rule issued by the US Supreme Court in 1964, saying that shows the Court were concerned only about VOTERS not total population.
Kagan brought up the issue of women prior to 1920 when Women could NOT vote in most elections and that at that time districts were set by TOTAL Population not Voting Population.
When the issue of Representation came up, the Appellants made comments that non voters were represented by their Congressman even though they can NOT vote for them. Bryer brought up the concept of virtual representation, which was the Argument the British Parliament made in the 1700s that they represented everyone in the British Empire, even the US Colonies, even through no one in the colonies had the right to vote for any member of Parliament.
The key is how the Justices want to handle the word "Voter". Is that word, used in the Voters Rights Act of 1965, the same as people, or a smaller group of people who can vote in an election? i.e. Voter means only people who can vote NOT the same as all of the people.
Please Note the State of Texas REJECTED the idea the districts should be based on Voting population instead of total population of the district. This action was brought by two people who said their were voters and had voted in elections in Texas and thought that their district had to many VOTERS in their district as oppose to other districts with smaller number of voters (but the same total number of people in all districts). Given districts have different numbers of voters (but the same total population) that violated the One Man, One Vote rule and thus violate the US Constitution.
Please note I am NOT a supportive of that position, I am just explaining it.
Ford_Prefect
(7,949 posts)Do not be distracted by the term Voter. Voting is held to be a right of US citizens. Those persons who are qualified to vote are known as voters.
Justice Breyer and others made the point that apportionment is about more than the vote alone. It is about proportional representation for All citizens.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I should have looked it up, to get the right name but my point was this is an attack on the concept of One Man, One Vote using the term One Man, One Vote as the reason.
When I wrote what I had, I had just finished reading the Transcripts and the Briefs, which I cited below, and then wrote by memory more to show who was whom in the litigation.
I did not read them fully, I just wanted to get a drift of the point each side was making, Tomorrow, if I have the time I will read them fully but the argument is what is protected? The people as a whole, including people who can NOT vote, or just voters?
Ford_Prefect
(7,949 posts)by trying to limit who is a citizen to only those who may vote, and in turn effectively limit who may vote at all.
The first sentence says clearly and plainly that the whole population is the basis for apportionment. It did not limit the population to only those who could vote at the time (Native American exception noted).
It seems to me that the appellants want to argue that the presence of the word vote reclassifies the population into qualified voters only. That is quite a stretch since it would require that those who may not vote become notionally property of the voters in one form or another, rather than citizens...A concept quite at odds with US legal tradition.
WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)Strictly speaking I guess they don't have to, but I wonder if the Republicans thought that part of it through.
Ford_Prefect
(7,949 posts)Response to GoLeft TV (Original post)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Here are the briefs: Please NOTE, the Appellee is the Governor of Texas who is DEFENDING the right to use TOTAL population NOT just the population of Voters (i.e. the Governor is Texas wants to divide districts using Total Population including NON-voters, i.e. Felons and Children, it is the Appellants who want to use only VOTERS in setting up voting districts). The Appellants are the one saying Texas should use ONLY Voter Population to set up districts. Thus the Federal Attorney General is supporting the Governor of Texas in this case.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/evenwel-v-abbott/
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.