June 2, 2015--One Man (sic) One Vote
If there is a case pending before the Supreme Court that has the potential to change life in America as we have come to know it, it is not their soon-to-be-announced ruling on same-sex marriage or even down the line Roe v. Wade.
It is how the Supremes will rule in 2016 on voting. On what used to be called one man one vote which in our current era is referred to as one person one vote.
Here's the issue--
Currently, election districts are drawn so that approximately the same number of residents are included in each one. SCOTUS will decide whether or not in their view this is constitutional or if districts made up of equivalent numbers of voters better satisfie the meaning of one person one vote.
If they decide the latter (and in previous cases that have raised similar questions the court has ruled that everyone needs to be counted, not just voters) this will dramatically shift electoral power away from urban centers and more toward suburban and rural communities.
In other words, districts that include only voters in their count will be much more conservative (read Republican) since cities with large immigrant populations (including undocumented ones who get counted but don't vote) are traditionally more liberal but as a percentage of population have fewer voters than rural or suburban communities.
Such a shift would have major political consequences and could lead to that long-dreamed-of permanent Republican majority. Thus, considering the iron ideological division in the current Supreme Court it is no surprise that the Chief Justice has opted to once again bring it to the court's attention. In his view, clearly, the current constitutionally-defined structure for election districts is not settled law. Just as the Voting Rights Act, which recently they substantially gutted, turned out not to be settled law.
We know right now, before even one brief is filed much less an oral argument offered, that at least seven or eight of the nine justices already have their minds made up. This shouldn't be, but that is how it works these days in the federal courts. Ideology and political orientation rule. Pun intended.
It is how the Supremes will rule in 2016 on voting. On what used to be called one man one vote which in our current era is referred to as one person one vote.
Here's the issue--
Currently, election districts are drawn so that approximately the same number of residents are included in each one. SCOTUS will decide whether or not in their view this is constitutional or if districts made up of equivalent numbers of voters better satisfie the meaning of one person one vote.
If they decide the latter (and in previous cases that have raised similar questions the court has ruled that everyone needs to be counted, not just voters) this will dramatically shift electoral power away from urban centers and more toward suburban and rural communities.
In other words, districts that include only voters in their count will be much more conservative (read Republican) since cities with large immigrant populations (including undocumented ones who get counted but don't vote) are traditionally more liberal but as a percentage of population have fewer voters than rural or suburban communities.
Such a shift would have major political consequences and could lead to that long-dreamed-of permanent Republican majority. Thus, considering the iron ideological division in the current Supreme Court it is no surprise that the Chief Justice has opted to once again bring it to the court's attention. In his view, clearly, the current constitutionally-defined structure for election districts is not settled law. Just as the Voting Rights Act, which recently they substantially gutted, turned out not to be settled law.
We know right now, before even one brief is filed much less an oral argument offered, that at least seven or eight of the nine justices already have their minds made up. This shouldn't be, but that is how it works these days in the federal courts. Ideology and political orientation rule. Pun intended.
Labels: Chief Justice Roberts, One Person One Vote, Redistricting, Row v. Wade, SCOTUS, Settled Law, Supreme Court, Voting Rights Act
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home