SCOTUS has just agreed to hear this case. It's a very big deal. In a bad way.

[cali]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a case that will answer a long-contested question about a bedrock principle of the American political system: the meaning of “one person one vote.”

The court has never resolved whether that means that voting districts should have the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters. The difference matters in places with large numbers of people who cannot vote legally, including immigrants who are here legally but are not citizens; unauthorized immigrants; children; and prisoners.

<snip>

If the challengers succeed, the practical consequences would be enormous, Joseph R. Fishkin, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin wrote in 2012 in The Yale Law Journal.

It would, he said, “shift power markedly at every level, away from cities and neighborhoods with many immigrants and many children and toward the older, whiter, more exclusively native-born areas in which a higher proportion of the total population consists of eligible voters.”

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/us/supreme-court-to-weigh-meaning-of-one-person-one-vote.html?_r=0

[Jefferson23]

1. Never heard of this case before today. The little I found on the back story is not much but will add

it here. This man appears to be of a Libertarian stripe, and also regarded as an expert on
ballot access and election laws. I don't know anything about him, but are you aware of what
he is referring to regarding Thomas?

*It is likely that Justice Clarence Thomas was the force who persuaded the Court to hear Evenwel v Abbott. Earlier he had dissented from a denial of cert in a similar case. Here is a copy of the brief of the Texas government, submitted several weeks ago, explaining why the case should be rejected. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.( end)
http://ballot-access.org/2015/05/26/u-s-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-texas-redistricting-case-next-term/

I have no idea what a denial of cert is, and what case he is referencing. Maybe yourself or someone
else who knows can weigh in.

[former9thward]

3. When the court denies cert they are refusing to take the case.

So when Thomas dissented in that decision it means he wanted the court to take the case. That case was Chen v. City of Houston, 121 S. Ct. 2020 (2001) which was a similar case to the one the court just accepted.

[Jefferson23]

4. Thank you for that. So he is most invested in this current one, ok. n/t

[TeamPooka]

12. cert is certification. if the court accepts the caseit is certified. Denial of cert is not accepted.

Like an actual opinion there can also be a dissent from a Justice(s).
Usually they don't say anything when they deny a case a hearing but sometimes they do.

[Jefferson23]

13. Thank you. It seems Thomas wants this case and now they have it, unsettling news.

I don't know how Kennedy will see it, which is a deep concern.

[CANDO]

2. Holy shit...

Taken to its logical conclusion....The Constitution applies only to eligible voters. Only eligible voters have a Bill of Rights, etc. These people are deranged. They'll stop at nothing to gain an electoral advantage to hold power.

[rurallib]

5. Yep - that's what i get also

this could totally negate any leverage cities ever had, which has obviously bee n little anyway.

Oy Vey!

[BrotherIvan]

6. I have a bad feeling about this

[rurallib]

7. this is really scary

as we have seen greta arguments and sound logic mean nothing to this Court.

Got to expect the Social Security and Medicare/medicaid will get the Roberts' treatment also before they lose their grip.

[scarletlib]

8. 3/5 of a person.

I will point out that the Constitution originally allowed slave-holding states to count each slave as 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of congressional districting. Of course those "3/5ths" were never allowed an actual vote but their numbers did give slave-holding states more power than they would have had if only the actual voting population had been counted.

I see nothing good coming from this with the current court.

[Hortensis]

11. Very good point about the original intent of the framers.

Of course, we have good reason to suspect that the conservative faction on this court won't mind that, or any other conflicting precedents or judicial principles, if it suits them.

I agree. This is potentially scary bad.

[hack89]

14. The 3/5 rule was actually an anti-slavery victory

the slave states wanted to count slaves the same as non slaves for the purpose of apportioning representatives to Congress.

We have never apportioned by eligible voters.

[scarletlib]

15. I agree with you.

The fact that slaves, who would never be allowed to vote, were counted for the purpose of Congressional apportioning even at 3/5ths of a person would seem to me to show the framers original intent in this. Count all for purposes of voting/ representation. A representative should represent all of his constituents not just those who voted for him.

[davidpdx]

9. The corporate supreme court would love to take away the representative power of urban

areas because they know that's where the Republicans are getting beat badly.

[greymattermom]

10. then why do we need a census?

Isn't that mandated?