Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge in voting rights case

[AR Husker Fan]

Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge in voting rights case

A significant decision that will have lasting impact on elections.

[BigRedBuster]

Interesting.

 

I'm struggling to see how this gives more power to voters in urban areas than rural areas.

[AR Husker Fan]

Populations density and diversity. It isn't that the individual voters gain or lose power, it's the size of the district and thus the number of representatives. Take, say, the Dallas-Fort Worth area. If you just count eligible voters, the size of the districts in that area will be larger. Let's say that would result in 4 districts. Now, assume you count all people - all of a sudden you have much smaller districts and a lot more of them - let's say, 10. In the first instance, those four large districts could each have a slight white majority over all that tends to vote Republican. But in the second case, you now have a much greater chance that many of the districts will encompass a majority of voters that are of some other ethnic background. So, the statehouse ends up with more minority representation, which tends to the Democratic party. Any "win" for urban voters is that their vote has a much better chance of being cast for a candidate that reflects their values and perhaps even ethnicity.

[BigRedBuster]

So, what you're saying is that let's say the state house is made up of 50 representatives and let's say 25 are Republicans and 25 are Democrats.

 

You're saying that with this, there will tend to be more urban districts so that would probably swing so that maybe there is now 30 Democrats and 20 Republicans.

 

I guess maybe I am swayed by my own community in this thinking. But...for this to happen, there would need to be a higher percentage of people registered to vote in rural areas than urban areas. AND, in the urban area, those registered to vote would need to be more minority (which leans Dems).

 

Well....my rural county is very heavily populated with hispanics and I see that happening more and more in Nebraska. I would think it would be even more so in Texas.

[TGHusker]

This may move Texas from a red state to a purple state. While non-citizens aren't suppose to be voting citizens by adding the non-citizen population to the mix will influence the balance of power in the Texas legislature.

[zoogs]

This was a unanimous decision to rebuke a challenge -- that is, nothing has changed, right?

 

In some ways this was a non-decision; it's left open whether a state can decide to define districts based on voter count only. That's a can kicked down the road.

 

SCOTUSblog analysis: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/opinion-analysis-leaving-a-constitutional-ideal-still-undefined/

 

And round-up of coverage: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/afternoon-round-up-todays-opinion-in-evenwel-v-abbott/

 

 

 

While virtually every argument used by the Ginsburg opinion in favor of basing representation on total population (because elected officials supposedly represent everybody and not just the voters) points toward a constitutional mandate, it turns out that the states actually are not bound by the Constitution to craft new election districts by starting with total population. The only thing settled constitutionally now is that the states also are not required to divide up districts by using the voting population to be assigned to each, making them equal. Should a state do it that way, the opinion seems to say, the Court will then face that issue.

[AR Husker Fan]

Well, keep in mind that there are other factors - and my use of Dallas-Fort Worth was simply to refer to a relatively dense urban area. Traditionally, as population density increases in one area of the state, it shrinks (or is static) in another. This means that the state has to shrink the size of the high density area, expand the size of the rural area, add a new district, or a combination of the three. In the rural area, you may have as high a population of eligible voters, but you have to factor in what that district's size means. It could result in fewer polling sites, spread over larger areas. Transportation becomes an issue for lower income voters, and can result in them not voting. That means you tend to homogenize the likely voting pool in the rural area, and that tends to be individuals who have greater income. That, in turn, GENERALLY means white, middle to upper class. And that is more of a Republican base than a Democrat base.

 

Likewise, it can mean adding a new district or districts, which would tend to be in the higher density areas. Those areas will tend to have a much more diverse population and less travel difficulties (among other barriers to voting), which results in more minority - which skews to the Democrat side - voting.

 

So, it isn't just an issue of the percentage of registered voters.

[BigRedBuster]

This may move Texas from a red state to a purple state. While non-citizens aren't suppose to be voting citizens by adding the non-citizen population to the mix will influence the balance of power in the Texas legislature.

Something that struck me on this is the non-citizen issue.

 

OK....this has nothing to do with the voter fraud that some people think happens with illegals and other people think it's just a bunch of crap thought up to prevent actual citizens for voting. So....that discussion really has nothing to do here.

 

BUT....what this did do is basically AUTOMATICALLY count non-citizens or illegal aliens.

 

Interesting.

[AR Husker Fan]

Well, yes and no. No, in the sense that it was ALWAYS the practice to count everyone - whether citizens or not. The Court simply affirmed this practice. Yes, in the sense that the Court declared that the states' (and every state does it) practice of counting all residents, regardless of citizenship, is permissible.

 

But, again, this is not new. The Court simply affirmed what has been the practice of every state for years and years. Not a new thing.

[BigRedBuster]

Well, yes and no. No, in the sense that it was ALWAYS the practice to count everyone - whether citizens or not. The Court simply affirmed this practice. Yes, in the sense that the Court declared that the states' (and every state does it) practice of counting all residents, regardless of citizenship, is permissible.

 

But, again, this is not new. The Court simply affirmed what has been the practice of every state for years and years. Not a new thing.

Should they?

 

And...I guess I scratch my head as to how they count? I don't think they would use census figures since I would think that would only be citizens....correct?

[AR Husker Fan]

Depends on one's perspective.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

 

This was a unanimous decision to rebuke a challenge -- that is, nothing has changed, right?

 

In some ways this was a non-decision; it's left open whether a state can decide to define districts based on voter count only. That's a can kicked down the road.

 

SCOTUSblog analysis: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/opinion-analysis-leaving-a-constitutional-ideal-still-undefined/

 

And round-up of coverage: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/afternoon-round-up-todays-opinion-in-evenwel-v-abbott/

 

 

 

While virtually every argument used by the Ginsburg opinion in favor of basing representation on total population (because elected officials supposedly represent everybody and not just the voters) points toward a constitutional mandate, it turns out that the states actually are not bound by the Constitution to craft new election districts by starting with total population. The only thing settled constitutionally now is that the states also are not required to divide up districts by using the voting population to be assigned to each, making them equal. Should a state do it that way, the opinion seems to say, the Court will then face that issue.

 

 

Well, yes and no. No, in the sense that it was ALWAYS the practice to count everyone - whether citizens or not. The Court simply affirmed this practice. Yes, in the sense that the Court declared that the states' (and every state does it) practice of counting all residents, regardless of citizenship, is permissible.

 

But, again, this is not new. The Court simply affirmed what has been the practice of every state for years and years. Not a new thing.

 

Agree with Zoogs & AR HF...

 

To put it into perspective, at a Federal level, the entire population is counted to determine representation in the US House of Representatives. The court is affirming this practice for State districts. Ginsberg's opinion is just that; if a State chooses to do it differently, the court will have to hear case and rule separately on that methodology.

 

I do not see the danger here as a Dem's vs Repub's issue since this has been a long-term common practice. I see the problem as an urban vs rural issue. Out here in CO, the rural & urban Republicans have had a divide almost as wide as that between Democrats & Republicans. The divide has really hurt Republicans in elections. It's not the only cause but it's significant issue and it's going to get worse. There's been a huge uptick in activity for the Northeast & Eastern portion of CO to get more autonomy. It's exactly the kind of "tyranny of the majority" the Founding Fathers debated at length...

[zoogs]

'Should they?' I think so, but it's hard to answer without acknowledging the partisan implications of the proposed change.

By "count" we are not talking about more or less votes, but about what gets counted as one district: equally sized by actual population, or equally sized by eligible voters. Although, districting itself has long been an area of, shall we say, creative interpretations of democracy.

While I understand there are good reasons to restrict the right to vote from a variety of legal residents of the United States, should those people be rendered politically invisible?

The census isn't only for citizens, by the way!

[Alamo City Husker]

The headline is a misnomer. Which is to be expected of liberal non-objective wire service's such as Reuters. The fact is they affirmed the count the way it has always been in Texas for over 200 years! It is partisan journalism like this that further divides our country. Get the FACTS HERE! Objective reporting in the supplied link notes both sides being PLEASED! #GetFactsNotPropaganda!!!

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/article/In-twist-Supreme-Court-siding-with-Texas-excites-7227373.php

[knapplc]

Which is to be expected of liberal non-objective wire service's such as Reuters.

 

 

Reuters makes money by selling news to other news outlets. That includes Fox News. They are not liberal or conservative, they supply basic facts which those outlets report on.

 

Unless a person thinks facts are "liberal" or "conservative."