SCOTUS to hear case that could change elections

1
The crazy Right Wing might just get more power and keep the GOP in power.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will examine the bedrock principle of "one person, one vote" in a major case that could yield the Republican Party a critical advantage in future elections. In Evenwel v. Abbott, the court is being asked to change how states draw legislative districts in a way that would boost the electoral power of white, rural voters, who lean Republican, at the expense of Latinos and African Americans, who tend to vote Democratic. The plaintiffs behind this high-stakes legal challenge are an unusual pair. One is a Texas tea party activist who has promoted a conspiratorial film suggesting President Barack Obama's real father was Frank Marshall Davis, a supposed propagandist for the Communist Party. The other is a security guard and religious fundamentalist who believes the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun and that unicorns were real.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... istricting

Our Texas crazies not only serve in congress and occasionally become president, but they also sit on the SCOTUS and hear cases from other Texas crazies. Actually GW Bush the known village idiot is not Texan. He is a Connecticut Idiot carpetbagger. We just had to do something to get him out of Texas politics. He like Cruz does not measure up to true Texas crazies.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: SCOTUS to hear case that could change elections

3
FiremanBob wrote:What I like best about LGC are the civility and respectful, open-minded discussion of serious issues.
Well sir, there's another thread that's waiting for you to civilly, respectfully and with an open mind discuss the serious issue you yourself brought up. Can we expect you anytime soon?
If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory. - Mickey Kaus, The New Republic

Re: SCOTUS to hear case that could change elections

4
Here is a good description of the issue.

Argument preview: How to measure “one person, one vote”

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/argum ... -one-vote/

The case is about what best way to apportion voting. One side says voters and eligible voters, the other says total population. Since urban centers have more population with the most ineligible voters, the argument is that some voters districts votes are diluted. The other argument is that government represents all the people whether voters or not. The Administration brief warns about the decision to try and determine who eligible voters are opens the process up for more gerrymandering.

Since the only real data the government has is the census and no database is available with the granularity needed to determine voters or eligible voters I will take a guess that the court will decide against the litigants.

Re: SCOTUS to hear case that could change elections

5
hoosier8 wrote:Here is a good description of the issue.

Argument preview: How to measure “one person, one vote”

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/argum ... -one-vote/

The case is about what best way to apportion voting. One side says voters and eligible voters, the other says total population. Since urban centers have more population with the most ineligible voters, the argument is that some voters districts votes are diluted. The other argument is that government represents all the people whether voters or not. The Administration brief warns about the decision to try and determine who eligible voters are opens the process up for more gerrymandering.

Since the only real data the government has is the census and no database is available with the granularity needed to determine voters or eligible voters I will take a guess that the court will decide against the litigants.
We can only hope.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: SCOTUS to hear case that could change elections

7
Actually having one vote count as one vote without the ability to manipulate districts might have been impossible 200 years ago but we have the technology now.

In my perfect world, we'd do away with all the bullshit and only count the number of votes for each candidate, nationwide. Whoever gets the most actual votes, no matter where those votes were cast, wins.

But that would be too much like democracy...
Image
Image

Re: SCOTUS to hear case that could change elections

8
The problem comes in when you start to look at the House. All of a sudden those two districts, one suburban, one urban, become one and the urban voters and drowned out.

Clearly the solution to this is to require all non-voting felons to report their current address to the government, that way there's an accurate picture of where they live. And while we're at it, they should be required to let the cops in to search their property. Just in case there's another felon hiding out. :sarcasm:

Or we could go with a realistic solution, and get rid of civil death after a felony conviction. Once released from parole, probation or prison a felon's rights should be restored.
"No one can build his security upon the nobleness of another person."
-Willa Cather

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests