Posted on Apr 4, 2016
Conservative challengers lose key Supreme Court voting rights case
4.48K
31
11
8
8
0
The plaintiff wanted the court to rule that only eligible voters be counted when determining districts, the "one person, one vote" rule. The reasoning behind the requested rule was to shift power away from areas that have large numbers of residents who are not citizens or do not vote.
Supreme Court upheld the current method of counting all persons in a district when drawing up election districts. This outcome preserves the status quo.
In a unanimous result, the court said a state can draw legislative districts based on total population. At issue in the case was the "one person, one vote" principle dating back to the 1960s, when the court held that state legislative districts must be drawn so they are equal in population.
But, until Monday, justices never specified whether that doctrine applied to the general population or to the voting population. All states currently draw lines based on general population, but two conservative plaintiffs from Texas argued their vote was being diluted in relation to other districts that had the same number of people but fewer voters.
The Obama administration and state of Texas opposed the lawsuit. Civil rights groups watched the case carefully, fearful that if the court were to rule with the plaintiffs, it could potentially shift power from urban areas -- districts that tend to include a higher percentage of individuals not eligible to vote such as non-citizens, released felons and children -- to rural areas that are more likely to favor Republicans.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion.
"The rule appellants urge has no mooring in the Equal Protection Clause. The Texas Senate map, we therefore conclude, complies with the requirements of the one-person, one-vote principle," Ginsburg wrote. "Because history, precedent, and practice suffice to reveal the infirmity of appellants' claims, we need not and do not resolve whether, as Texas now argues, States may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population."
Supreme Court upheld the current method of counting all persons in a district when drawing up election districts. This outcome preserves the status quo.
In a unanimous result, the court said a state can draw legislative districts based on total population. At issue in the case was the "one person, one vote" principle dating back to the 1960s, when the court held that state legislative districts must be drawn so they are equal in population.
But, until Monday, justices never specified whether that doctrine applied to the general population or to the voting population. All states currently draw lines based on general population, but two conservative plaintiffs from Texas argued their vote was being diluted in relation to other districts that had the same number of people but fewer voters.
The Obama administration and state of Texas opposed the lawsuit. Civil rights groups watched the case carefully, fearful that if the court were to rule with the plaintiffs, it could potentially shift power from urban areas -- districts that tend to include a higher percentage of individuals not eligible to vote such as non-citizens, released felons and children -- to rural areas that are more likely to favor Republicans.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion.
"The rule appellants urge has no mooring in the Equal Protection Clause. The Texas Senate map, we therefore conclude, complies with the requirements of the one-person, one-vote principle," Ginsburg wrote. "Because history, precedent, and practice suffice to reveal the infirmity of appellants' claims, we need not and do not resolve whether, as Texas now argues, States may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population."
Conservative challengers lose key Supreme Court voting rights case
Posted from cnn.com
Supreme Court
Politics
Election 2016
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 7
4
4
0
This got me thinking (I know very dangerous) about prison populations and I found out some interesting facts about prisons and how districts are drawn up. Although people in prison can’t vote, they remain legal residents of their home communities under the laws of most states, the Census Bureau currently tabulates people in prison as residents of their prison cells, not their homes. Using this flawed data to draw legislative districts grants the people who live near large prisons extra influence at the expense of voters everywhere else. This inequity in representation seems very counter to the one person, one vote approach. Seems like if a prison was built in a very republican community the prison population would be exploited and not fairly represented.
(4)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
It seems like it would be easy (and likely) to be exploited in any community. While I think districts should be drawn along population lines only, it seems like including prison populations would be a terrible idea.
(2)
(0)
(2)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SPC David S. - I see what you're saying. I missed a sentence in there somehow and didn't totally understand what you were saying. I also see the SCOTUS' problem though - it looks like the intention was to go for much fuzzier numbers like illegal immigrants and un-monitored felons and the SCOTUS said that was a no-go. I wonder if you created a much more specific law that dealt purely with hard numbers that can be easily determined with precision, it would be more likely to survive a challenge.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
CPT (Join to see) LTC Stephen F. TSgt Hunter Logan SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL I disagree in part with the decision because I think the figure should reflect actual US citizens of voting age eligible to vote..
This is why we need a National ID Card for citizens issued free of charge! Even Mexico does it!
It should never be including illegals and non-citizen residents in any election statistics
This is why we need a National ID Card for citizens issued free of charge! Even Mexico does it!
It should never be including illegals and non-citizen residents in any election statistics
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Frankly, I don't think the SCOTUS ruling goes far enough. Districts should be drawn purely by population, preferably by computer. Demographics should be ignored. Yeah, you'll end up with some districts that are powerhouses, but we have that already. Anything that kills things like the Redmap Project are a plus for voters.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google