Posted on Dec 13, 2015
SCOTUS: Do ileagles dilute one person, one vote?
5.7K
14
13
5
5
0
Interesting question. I think I remember the '60s rule of the 14th amendment. I was young and dumb so I know it didn't interest me. Now, I'm old and it still doesn't interest me. There are many hang ups with our illegal immigrants, and this is just another one. I don't understand if a person is an illegal immigrant, how can they vote? Our government is so screwed up. What's going on?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could have serious implications for congressional representation. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment guaranteed a principle that became known as “one person, one vote.” In other words, legislative districts must be drawn with equal populations. Now, the question is whether that means general or voting population, and whether clusters of illegal immigrants dilute the power of legitimate voters.
Evenwel v. Abbott was brought by two Texas residents who argue that the power of the vote in their districts is diluted because of disparities due to the distribution of the non-voter population — in this case illegal immigrants. Each state legislative district in Texas has 811,000 total people, regardless of their eligibility to vote. Titus County, one of the districts in question in this case, has 574,000 eligible voters. The nearby rural district that encompasses the city of Brownsville has 372,000 eligible voters. This means that a vote from Titus county carries two-thirds the weight of a vote in Brownsville.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could have serious implications for congressional representation. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment guaranteed a principle that became known as “one person, one vote.” In other words, legislative districts must be drawn with equal populations. Now, the question is whether that means general or voting population, and whether clusters of illegal immigrants dilute the power of legitimate voters.
Evenwel v. Abbott was brought by two Texas residents who argue that the power of the vote in their districts is diluted because of disparities due to the distribution of the non-voter population — in this case illegal immigrants. Each state legislative district in Texas has 811,000 total people, regardless of their eligibility to vote. Titus County, one of the districts in question in this case, has 574,000 eligible voters. The nearby rural district that encompasses the city of Brownsville has 372,000 eligible voters. This means that a vote from Titus county carries two-thirds the weight of a vote in Brownsville.
The Link:
http://patriotpost.us/articles/39451
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could have serious implications for congressional representation. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment guaranteed a principle that became known as “one person, one vote.” In other words, legislative districts must be drawn with equal populations. Now, the question is whether that means general or voting population, and whether clusters of illegal immigrants dilute the power of legitimate voters.
Evenwel v. Abbott was brought by two Texas residents who argue that the power of the vote in their districts is diluted because of disparities due to the distribution of the non-voter population — in this case illegal immigrants. Each state legislative district in Texas has 811,000 total people, regardless of their eligibility to vote. Titus County, one of the districts in question in this case, has 574,000 eligible voters. The nearby rural district that encompasses the city of Brownsville has 372,000 eligible voters. This means that a vote from Titus county carries two-thirds the weight of a vote in Brownsville.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could have serious implications for congressional representation. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment guaranteed a principle that became known as “one person, one vote.” In other words, legislative districts must be drawn with equal populations. Now, the question is whether that means general or voting population, and whether clusters of illegal immigrants dilute the power of legitimate voters.
Evenwel v. Abbott was brought by two Texas residents who argue that the power of the vote in their districts is diluted because of disparities due to the distribution of the non-voter population — in this case illegal immigrants. Each state legislative district in Texas has 811,000 total people, regardless of their eligibility to vote. Titus County, one of the districts in question in this case, has 574,000 eligible voters. The nearby rural district that encompasses the city of Brownsville has 372,000 eligible voters. This means that a vote from Titus county carries two-thirds the weight of a vote in Brownsville.
The Link:
http://patriotpost.us/articles/39451
Constitution
Congress
Supreme Court
Voting
Immigration
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
Legislative apportionment is defined in the Constitution as equally representing the people in the House of Representatives (and by proxy, in the Electoral College) as determined through the census. For this purpose, everybody is counted, including Illegal Aliens, Legal Residents, minors, and felons. "The power of a vote" varies from place to place, as a voter in Alaska or Wyoming has more "representation" per voter than one on say Texas, just because of the way the Constitution works and because every state needs at least one Representative.
Is it unfair that Hawaii and California have the same number of Senators? Nope, because the Constitution says so. Don't like it, pull a Virginia and become two states to get more Senators.
Is it unfair that Hawaii and California have the same number of Senators? Nope, because the Constitution says so. Don't like it, pull a Virginia and become two states to get more Senators.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SGT (Join to see) There's a little misinformation going on regards to this on the web.
Here's a quick breakdown.
The 14th basically says that ALL "residents" (Persons or People) regardless of whether they are Citizens, or Immigrants (Legal or Illegal) MUST be counted. This means that ALL 320 MILLION people must be used for FEDERAL elections. This applies to President, Senate, and House of Representatives, and their Allocations thereof (like Electoral College and distribution of seats).
The SCOTUS Case before them WILL NOT affect this.
However.... States are suggesting that "Illegals" or more specifically "Non-Voters" (Children under 18, and Non-Residents) should not be counted as "residents" of said districts (States, and any breakdown thereof). This means that areas with higher populations of children could potentially have less Representation. Border areas with higher populations of non-citizen residents would have Representation.
Why this is important is because:
Let's use the States of Purple & Orange. They both have 1000 people, and you get 20 seats for every 1000 "voters." Now in Purple, 50% of the population is a Voter therefor they get 10 seats. In Orange, only 25% of the population is a Voter therefor they get 5 seats. Same "population, different amount of representation.
- In theory the children are being represented by their parents, however Census is only done every 10 years, so anyone age 9-17 is NOT being represented for a specific timespan under the proposed rules. This is in theory counterbalanced by old people dying on the other end (but we have an aging population). So chock this up as a Negative.
- Additionally this would eliminate Non-RESIDENTS (as opposed to Non-Citizens) from voting in Local elections. The debate is that these are individuals who do not contribute to the "community" (et al) to which they belong (taxation) therefore they do not deserve representation at that level. This isn't wholly true, but the issue gets really complex at this level. So chock this up as a Negative/Positive (Neutral)
In essence this is a way to manipulate voter districts much like Gerrymandering. Since you can't change the district lines... redefine the people inside...
Hope that helps.
Here's a quick breakdown.
The 14th basically says that ALL "residents" (Persons or People) regardless of whether they are Citizens, or Immigrants (Legal or Illegal) MUST be counted. This means that ALL 320 MILLION people must be used for FEDERAL elections. This applies to President, Senate, and House of Representatives, and their Allocations thereof (like Electoral College and distribution of seats).
The SCOTUS Case before them WILL NOT affect this.
However.... States are suggesting that "Illegals" or more specifically "Non-Voters" (Children under 18, and Non-Residents) should not be counted as "residents" of said districts (States, and any breakdown thereof). This means that areas with higher populations of children could potentially have less Representation. Border areas with higher populations of non-citizen residents would have Representation.
Why this is important is because:
Let's use the States of Purple & Orange. They both have 1000 people, and you get 20 seats for every 1000 "voters." Now in Purple, 50% of the population is a Voter therefor they get 10 seats. In Orange, only 25% of the population is a Voter therefor they get 5 seats. Same "population, different amount of representation.
- In theory the children are being represented by their parents, however Census is only done every 10 years, so anyone age 9-17 is NOT being represented for a specific timespan under the proposed rules. This is in theory counterbalanced by old people dying on the other end (but we have an aging population). So chock this up as a Negative.
- Additionally this would eliminate Non-RESIDENTS (as opposed to Non-Citizens) from voting in Local elections. The debate is that these are individuals who do not contribute to the "community" (et al) to which they belong (taxation) therefore they do not deserve representation at that level. This isn't wholly true, but the issue gets really complex at this level. So chock this up as a Negative/Positive (Neutral)
In essence this is a way to manipulate voter districts much like Gerrymandering. Since you can't change the district lines... redefine the people inside...
Hope that helps.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGT (Join to see) - Far from always. Far from always.
I just track SCOTUS cases, because I believe they have the biggest chance of MASSIVE sweeping changes. Legislature does change things, but it's slow and designed to be. Judicial Changes however.. can be unpredictable...
I just track SCOTUS cases, because I believe they have the biggest chance of MASSIVE sweeping changes. Legislature does change things, but it's slow and designed to be. Judicial Changes however.. can be unpredictable...
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
SGT (Join to see)
CSM Charles Hayden, Our voting rights nowadays are almost comical. If illegals can somehow vote, (I still don't understand why), some of our votes will be cancelled out, if I understand it correctly. Then the POTUS is elected by the electoral college commission, what good is it to vote? It's pretty disgusting to me.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGT (Join to see) - Added a little more in-depth explanation about what this case is about. It's "insanely complex" to say the least, but it's not about giving illegals the vote. It's actually about "redistricting" in different way.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CSM Charles Hayden - This would actually be more republican power if the case is "won" as presented.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google