"One man, one vote" upheld by unanimous Supreme Court
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:57:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  "One man, one vote" upheld by unanimous Supreme Court
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: "One man, one vote" upheld by unanimous Supreme Court  (Read 795 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 04, 2016, 10:17:06 AM »

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scotus-evenwel-decision

The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, contested the counting of people not eligible to vote (non-citizens, kids) for legislative redistricting. This would have been a massive impact on TX's redistricting.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2016, 11:10:39 AM »

Good. The Petitioner's argument was silly. I don't know why a lot of people seemed to be freaking out about this case when the Court clearly took it up to put to rest said silly claim. The Court held that a state may draw its legislative districts based on total population and is not required to instead use voter-eligible population. I would prefer to go one step farther and hold that states must use total population, but I understand why the Court didn't reach that question.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2016, 11:24:41 AM »

The Court reached the correct result. It's not surprising this was unanimous.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2016, 12:02:50 PM »
« Edited: April 04, 2016, 12:04:46 PM by Virginia »

I think it's worth noting here that the ruling doesn't forbid states from drawing lines based on voting-eligible population, but rather SCOTUS declined to force states to do that. They didn't say drawing lines by voting-eligible population was constitutional, either. They neglected to address that issue entirely.

I could have misinterpreted this a bit, but I think it is clear that this ruling doesn't bar states from drawing districts like that.

Does anyone else with some legal bonafides have insight into the specifics of this? Possibly someone whose username begins with Tor and ends with ie?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2016, 12:12:24 PM »

Later honey. I need to read some legal documents, after goofing off on this snowy morning.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2016, 12:32:04 PM »

Later honey. I need to read some legal documents, after goofing off on this snowy morning.

Where have you been lately? I feel like you haven't been as active as before Sad
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2016, 12:44:53 PM »

Three-fifths, and such.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2016, 12:52:44 PM »

I think it's worth noting here that the ruling doesn't forbid states from drawing lines based on voting-eligible population, but rather SCOTUS declined to force states to do that. They didn't say drawing lines by voting-eligible population was constitutional, either. They neglected to address that issue entirely.

I could have misinterpreted this a bit, but I think it is clear that this ruling doesn't bar states from drawing districts like that.

It looks like you have that right:

"Because constitutional history, precedent, and practice reveal the infirmity of appellants’ claim, this Court need not resolve whether, as Texas now argues, States may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-940_ed9g.pdf


The Supreme Court, and other federal courts may only hear actual "cases". This particular case was a challenge to the Texas redistricting which was based on equal total population, not equal voter population. In order for the Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of voter-only apportionment, a State would have to actually adopt the scheme and draw maps under the plan, and a legal challenge would have to work its way through the Fed Courts. So voter-only apportionment may be flat out unconstitutional, or OK. But in this case, the Supreme Court unanimously believes that it is permissible for States to base maps on equal population. Thomas concurred on this, but called the "one person, one vote" test a stupid fiction that should be eliminated. Alito also concurred on the outcome, but took issue with certain history presented in the majority opinion.
Logged
Derpist
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 997
Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -2.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2016, 12:54:32 PM »

What a misleading trash title. No one argued against one man, one vote - they just argued about the precise definition.

And the Court made the prudent holding that they didn't need to be ones to define that.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2016, 01:15:59 PM »

It looks like you have that right:

"Because constitutional history, precedent, and practice reveal the infirmity of appellants’ claim, this Court need not resolve whether, as Texas now argues, States may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-940_ed9g.pdf


The Supreme Court, and other federal courts may only hear actual "cases". This particular case was a challenge to the Texas redistricting which was based on equal total population, not equal voter population. In order for the Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of voter-only apportionment, a State would have to actually adopt the scheme and draw maps under the plan, and a legal challenge would have to work its way through the Fed Courts. So voter-only apportionment may be flat out unconstitutional, or OK. But in this case, the Supreme Court unanimously believes that it is permissible for States to base maps on equal population. Thomas concurred on this, but called the "one person, one vote" test a stupid fiction that should be eliminated. Alito also concurred on the outcome, but took issue with certain history presented in the majority opinion.

Thanks for the clarification there Smiley

I do think this issue will be resolved entirely come 2023 - 2024, as it's likely that at least one Republican-controlled state will attempt to draw lines this way in 2021-2022. Despite their position in this specific case, I do believe Texas will at least consider this in the next round of redistricting as they have already shown little regard for fairness in all aspects of redistricting and I can't see them passing up the opportunity to rig the maps significantly more in their favor.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2016, 01:41:03 PM »

What a misleading trash title. No one argued against one man, one vote - they just argued about the precise definition.

Of "one"?
Logged
Derpist
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 997
Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -2.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2016, 01:43:35 PM »

What a misleading trash title. No one argued against one man, one vote - they just argued about the precise definition.

Of "one"?


Basically. That seems like a genuinely interesting question that I'm glad the Court didn't try to settle.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2016, 02:34:12 PM »

I think it's worth noting here that the ruling doesn't forbid states from drawing lines based on voting-eligible population, but rather SCOTUS declined to force states to do that. They didn't say drawing lines by voting-eligible population was constitutional, either. They neglected to address that issue entirely.

I could have misinterpreted this a bit, but I think it is clear that this ruling doesn't bar states from drawing districts like that.

Does anyone else with some legal bonafides have insight into the specifics of this? Possibly someone whose username begins with Tor and ends with ie?

That's correct. There were really three positions being argued in this case. The plaintiffs argued that the "one person, one vote" rule requires apportionment based on voter-eligible population rather than total population. Texas argued that "one person, one vote" does not mandate either rule and states are free to decide which to use. The United States argued that "one person, one vote" requires use of total population and forbids the use of voter-eligible population instead. The Court rejected the plaintiff's argument but didn't actually adopt either of Texas or the United States's view. The Court just said that "one person, one vote" permits the use of total population, and the Court did not reach the question of whether the Constitution forbids or permits the use of voter-eligible population instead.


The Supreme Court, and other federal courts may only hear actual "cases". This particular case was a challenge to the Texas redistricting which was based on equal total population, not equal voter population. In order for the Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of voter-only apportionment, a State would have to actually adopt the scheme and draw maps under the plan, and a legal challenge would have to work its way through the Fed Courts. So voter-only apportionment may be flat out unconstitutional, or OK. But in this case, the Supreme Court unanimously believes that it is permissible for States to base maps on equal population. Thomas concurred on this, but called the "one person, one vote" test a stupid fiction that should be eliminated. Alito also concurred on the outcome, but took issue with certain history presented in the majority opinion.

I don't think this is quite true. Here we had a justiciable Article III case where the issue was whether or not Texas's districting plan violated the "one person, one vote" rule articulated by the Supreme Court. The Court could definitely have reached the question of whether that rule permitted use of voter-eligible population if a majority of the Court had wanted to. The question was what the "one person, one vote" rule actually means. Plaintiff argued that Texas must redraw its lines because the rule is X. The Court said "No, because the rule is not X." But the Court could  just as easily have responded, "No, because the rule is Y."
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2016, 02:39:03 PM »


Huh? That has literally NOTHING to do with this decision.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2016, 02:44:38 PM »

What a misleading trash title. No one argued against one man, one vote - they just argued about the precise definition.

In all fairness, this is exactly the way the media is reporting it and has been sensationalizing this case all along. Also, while you're correct that none of the parties actually argued for overturning one person, one vote, Clarence Thomas kind of did. 
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,659


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2016, 09:25:29 PM »

What do you think Scalia would have said had he been alive?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2016, 09:27:17 PM »

I still believe that both apportionment and redistricting should be based on eligible voters rather than total population, even if that doesn't benefit my party.

That said, the Constitution obviously doesn't mandate it, so good decision.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 04, 2016, 09:35:49 PM »

What do you think Scalia would have said had he been alive?

He would've been a concurrence who likely would've disapproved of the majority implying that it may require non-voters to be counted at some point in the future.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 04, 2016, 10:47:20 PM »

What do you think Scalia would have said had he been alive?

He almost certainly would have joined in/ written Alito's concurrence emphasizing that the decision does not prohibit states from using voter-eligible population and strongly suggesting that when that question does arise in the future the Court should allow the states to choose.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.042 seconds with 13 queries.