USSC Unanimous: '1 Person 1 Vote' Rule Not Applicable To Altering Political District Boundaries

[easyt65]

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Conservative Group’s ‘One Person, One Vote’ Argument

"A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can count everyone, not just eligible voters, in deciding how to draw electoral districts. The justices turned back a challenge from Texas voters that could have dramatically altered political district boundaries and disproportionately affected the nation’s growing Latino population."

The argument in Texas was made that voting district boundaries should be drawn according to the number of ELIGIBLE / LEGAL voting members in each district - '1 ELIGIBLE, QUALIFIED voting person, 1 vote', that in voting districts illegals and all others who can NOT vote should have no impact on voting districting.

Sounds reasonable, at first. The USSC wisely saw otherwise.

Ginsburg said that “history, our decisions and settled practice in all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions point in the same direction” ... said the court was not resolving whether states may use voter population.

Though the justices were unanimous in upholding Texas’ use of total population, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito declined to join Ginsburg’s opinion.

THOMAS:
" ...the Constitution gives the states the freedom to draw political lines based on different population counts. Referring to the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, he said the high court “has never provided a sound basis for the one-person, one-vote principle.”

ALITO:
"...objected to Ginsburg’s reliance on the Constitution’s prescription for using the once-a-decade census to divvy up seats in the House of Representatives among the states, said the history of congressional representation was the product of political compromise, & “It is impossible to draw any clear constitutional command from this complex history.”

 

[jwoodie]

This decision is based on the Constitution's expedient reference to "persons" rather than citizens, in order to count slaves and Native Americans for purposes of Congressional apportionment. With modern gerrymandering, it is commonly used to create "safe" seats for political party leaders who can pass along campaign contributions to their favorites in other districts.

 

[tinydancer]

This decision is based on the Constitution's expedient reference to "persons" rather than citizens, in order to count slaves and Native Americans for purposes of Congressional apportionment. With modern gerrymandering, it is commonly used to create "safe" seats for political party leaders who can pass along campaign contributions to their favorites in other districts.

No guff.

This is my favorite example to throw back in liberals faces when they start whining on about R gerrymandering. Check it out. Luis Gutierrez Illinois 4th.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

This decision is based on the Constitution's expedient reference to "persons" rather than citizens, in order to count slaves and Native Americans for purposes of Congressional apportionment. With modern gerrymandering, it is commonly used to create "safe" seats for political party leaders who can pass along campaign contributions to their favorites in other districts.

No guff.

This is my favorite example to throw back in liberals faces when they start whining on about R gerrymandering. Check it out. Luis Gutierrez Illinois 4th.

This decision is based on the Constitution's expedient reference to "persons" rather than citizens, in order to count slaves and Native Americans for purposes of Congressional apportionment. With modern gerrymandering, it is commonly used to create "safe" seats for political party leaders who can pass along campaign contributions to their favorites in other districts.

No guff.

This is my favorite example to throw back in liberals faces when they start whining on about R gerrymandering. Check it out. Luis Gutierrez Illinois 4th.

Amusing how hypocrisy works. 'The group, operating under the name of the Committee For A Fair And Balanced Map"

Following the lead of some of the top Republican members of the Illinois General Assembly, who last week filed suit over the state’s redrawn House and Senate boundaries, a group of current and former Illinois Republican congressmen have filed a federal lawsuit that claims that the new Democrat-drawn congressional boundaries discriminate against Latino and Republican voters and violate the Voting Rights Act. -- Illinois Redistricting: Republicans File Suit Over New, Democrat-Drawn Congressional Map​