SCOTUS shoots down Conservative attempt at voter suppression - 8-0.

[11 Bravo]

An attempt by conservatives in Texas to change the way elections are decided by diluting the power of black and hispanic residents was resoundingly defeated as SCOTUS unanimously reaffirmed the principle of "One person, one vote".
(Just now, as per MSNBC)

[LiberalArkie]

1. What the hell is going on up there? Are they having dreams of pitchforks and guillotines?

[Trajan]

2. Wondering ...

Where exactly is 'up there'? ...

[LiberalArkie]

4. The supremes.. Like not taking the Walmart case or this one.

[Hortensis]

15. This is HUGE. A vote the other way would have

shifted MORE power to rural areas, which already have more voter power per person than those in urban areas (the vast majority of Americans) and also to predominantly white and Republican areas.

It would also have made people who can't vote, children, mentally ill, and, of course, noncitizens, all of whom are affected by laws governing where they live, effectively invisible or irrelevant.

Unfortunately, SCOTUS did not close off the right of states to decide to consider only registered voters, they only said no to requiring the entire nation to do so.

This was just another way conservatives are trying to retain white minority power in the face of changing demographics. It had already been decided long ago and is well embedded in practice and law, but this was an attempt to REINTERPRET existing law by people for whom the will of the people is an enemy to be defeated keep trying.

They're planning a wholesale "reinterpretation" of our constitution, particularly the amendments in the Bill of Rights. That's why Scalia's death was such a blow to them. They just needed one more justice.

[RiverNoord]

36. I do agree that non-citizens should not count toward an area's

population for purposes of apportioning voting power.

However, how the hell do you actually assess that? Even resident documented non-citizens are very tricky to count, and with Republicans running the assessments, heavy abuse would be guaranteed, resulting in mega-lawsuits.

And limiting it to 'registered voters?' How many U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote but not 'registered' (my 'born in' state of North Dakota and 'adopted' state of Minnesota have 'same day' registration - works great.) would now be effectively disenfranchised due to their existence being ignored for purposes of proportionate representation?

Then, what happens in a baby boom? An area has an larger-than-usual proportion of 16-17 year-olds at the time of assessment? By the time they are old enough to vote, the value of their vote is diluted.

Regardless of SCOTUS agendas concerning the Constitution, every single justice (even Thomas, which means it's VERY obvious) saw the chaos that would result from this and cut it off quickly.

[Hortensis]

44. If I said "registered" somewhere, I apologize.

The case was about eligible voters. I read that these days that probably wouldn't be too hard to figure for most places.

As for non-citizens and other nons, if they weren't, areas would be added to others, and local areas losing representation for their actual population causes problems.

You might mind if your area, that had special flood problems from climate change, was added to a larger district of people who had none. When everyone in your area were all affected by washouts of roads and your town dump, broken sewers, interrupted safe drinking water supplies, stores that couldn't open. You might just have a problem if most voters in your district weren't interested in your problems, your county decided not to allocate adequate funds, etc.

This sort of thing happens all the time.

Imagine...schools. Your child is in a classroom with 38 other students and inoperable drinking fountains because a bunch of people in your district, like those working on nearby farms and feeding and diapering the residents of a large eldercare facility, and their children, are conveniently invisible to people looking for excuses to allocate school funding to a new high school football stadium, then just about any place but the schools.

We actually had that situation, the drinking fountains. Our neighborhood of a city known for its good schools was in a little mountain valley behind the city; we could never get funding to fix up the elementary school because the people down on the flats, in the same city, repeatedly turned it down at the polls. They did vote funds for the most beautiful Board of Ed building you can imagine, set in a park, every convenience, long halls filled with ex-principles "promoted" to cushy jobs doing...something.

Imagine if we'd had a substantial population of low-income undocumented workers (we didn't) who were even more "invisible" than us?

How about if a town couldn't qualify for needed state or federal funds because its official population was smaller than it really was?

[RiverNoord]

49. Nope you didn't, and I heartily apologize.

I have no idea how I got that into my head. I noted the case some time ago and ruled it out as a sure loser, so I haven't followed it.

And your points are good ones. All of the examples you listed are dead on, and after reading them I've concluded that my original assertion was wrong.

(Usually it takes me a lot of time and evidence for a change of mind, so you really knocked it out of the park

There is no plausible method of regions with needs such as those you've suggested to effectively advocate for themselves without representation in reasonable proportion to their actual populations.

Thanks, Hortensis.

[Volaris]

45. ND is my 'born it's State as well,

And as a general rule I've considered the population and the State Government relatively sane for what would otherwise be a Red State. Specifically, StateRun economics seem to be on the FDR=economic stability model, and conservativism means 'let's not fuck with what's been PROVEN TO WORK WELL.'

I'm from the Red River Valley, and I'll admit there are days when I really miss it.
You?

[RiverNoord]

48. Ditto to the RRV!

Born in Grand Forks, raised about 35 miles to the SW. Folks farmed until retiring last year.

Spent many years in Fargo and wouldn't mind moving back if the opportunity arose. Still visit family in the area quite a bit.

And yeah, I agree that the ND version of a 'Red State' is definitely a mix of traditions, and, in general, 'conservatism' means what it sounds like it means.

On the other hand, the state budget is in major danger right now as, apparently, no one imagined that oil prices would go down... So, a bit of the stupid also.

And quite a lot of rural racism, unfortunately. Which is pretty amazing, as the best excuse for ethnic diversity in rural North Dakotans is whether you burn or tan in the summer sun. Or maybe not so amazing, after all.

[Volaris]

56. Yeah I lived in hillsboro...

The rural racism there isn't about generationaly taught hatreds so much as there's just not enough there to make the population that diverse..it's about naivete, not outright hatred.

From what I understand, the western oil field 'boom towns' have brought a lot of socioeconomic problems that can only be financially offset by the economic gains of sustained drilling. Everybody pulled out before the local populations could allocate resources to those problems, and now they're stuck trying to figure out how...cause that trash oil isn't worth pulling out of the ground at less than 80$ a barrell..

The STATE OWNED Bank was the only one in the nation not unduly burdened by the bubble-burst and subsequent recession..because it was STATE OWNED and not allowed to be run like a financial insane asylum.

And you're correct about either tanning or burning in the summer sun lol. Red River Valley dirt is the most beautiful in the world..looks like potting soil. I'm in Missouri now and most of the farmland here is made of clay and mud. Not sure how even weeds grow in it.

[7962]

53. I imagine if Scalia were still alive he'd have made it 9-0.

It was blatant

[MillennialDem]

8. I hope they are. This country is closer to the brink than people want to admit.

[Dustlawyer]

20. Our whole political system is corrupt, much of the judiciary,

and our media is just a propaganda tool for the shadow government that controls our politicians and elected judges.

The majority of Americans are seriously hurting financially due to the greedy Plutocrats/corporations and they are finally waking up to the realization of who the true perpetrators are.

Electing Bernie would be like a relief valve and enable the big changes necessary to prevent a total meltdown. If Hillary or Trump wins we will be pushed over the edge.

We are definitely close to the brink of some serious shit!

[Hortensis]

23. You might be interested to know that

being sure that one's nation is on the very brink of disaster and that only one's own ideology, candidate, party, solution can save it (no one else's) is a strong characteristic of personality types on both the far left and far right. If this is your first brink, it may be that you are merely influenced by that kind of thinking. If it's only the latest of a series of brinks, well, maybe take heart from the fact that so far we've just kept on tooling right past the cliff edges on level ground somehow?

I agree that the trend toward fascism is disturbing, and its increasing incorporation in our laws, state especially, but we're not on the brink yet and seem to have dug in our heels and started peering suspiciously toward where the hard-cores on the right are trying to lead us.

[Dustlawyer]

52. While I dont claim to be infallable, I can see a disturbing trend.

Being a History major in college, I studied the rise and fall of many empires. Our current situation has all of the elements of a building revolution. TPTB are not likely to back off of their plans to grab more and more of our country's assets, resources, and money while continually working to lower pay, benefits and social services/safety net.

Only one candidate is even addressing the root cause of our problems. The root cause is their ability to legally buy our politicians. Hillary is part of the establishment and will not do anything except maybe working around the edges.

[bhikkhu]

55. People are creatures of routine

its difficult to create motivation (whether in oneself or in a collective group) without a fire and brimstone the-end-is-nigh type narrative.

Having lived for 50 years, and having heard more predictions of disaster than I can remember, I take them as simple motivational rhetoric - the value is in the intent. Things don't end, but they do change, and usually incrementally, in rather boring ways. If we had a candidate who promised general stability with very small changes for the better over a certain number of years (such as Obama has delivered), voters might have trouble motivating themselves to get out of bed on election day for that.

[reACTIONary]

62. +100 !! (NT)

[Hortensis]

67. Well, polls of economic wellbeing are

surprisingly positive, and younger generations are also positive about the future, so where this revolution is supposed to come from, I don't know. Some yammering on the web is not a revolution, and I believe you are mistaking the signs.

The NY Times had an article the other day suggesting that most of the current anger is political and party-against-party, rather than toward government. Even most right-wingers are more hostile toward members of the other party than they are toward minorities, although the genesis of all this seems to have been racial issues. Of course DU shows there are more divisions than just between the two main official parties.

Except for a little roughing up at a handful of political rallies, mainly Trump's, though, this all remains within the context of our national institution of currently corrupt but peaceable transitions of power. We won't be seeing rural conservative Wisconsinites occupying power plants and TV stations and marching on Madison to take over the Capitol today. Nor is the Far Left going to do anything but join all the other voters expected to turn out in large numbers on a cold, rainy day.

[former9thward]

31. No, those are your dreams.

Stereotypes never fit the SC but people, particularly political partisans, love to live in a world of stereotypes.

[elleng]

39. Exactly.

Happy to hear sanity here re: a decision from the Supremes.

[FourScore]

41. I think LiberalArkie meant "nightmares", not dreams.

Nice to see a unanimous decision on the right side of history.

[FourScore]

40. My guess is that they don't have Scalia's influence anymore. n/t

[PJMcK]

3. Thanks for the news

This is a very interesting decision and thanks for posting it, 11 Bravo. I was unaware of this case and its good to see that even the SCOTUS conservatives saw the unconstitutionality of the Texas action.

Interestingly, by protecting the minority vote, this decision could help our Democratic party be competitive in Texas come November.

[Atman]

5. Maybe Mitch & Co. will re-think blocking Obama's conservative SCOTUS nominee.

That's two big decisions now being decided by a tied SCOTUS. Maybe this wasn't such a great strategy for Mitchy-poo.

[lancer78]

6. It was an 8-0 decision n/t

[Atman]

14. Oh. Cool.

I guess I should have checked that first.

[happyslug]

69. Actually it was 6-1-1

Thomas and Alito wrote separate opinions agreeing only in the Judgement but NOT the rationale.

Here is the actual Opinion:

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

[rurallib]

7. Thomas sleep through this one

and let the notorious RBG vote for him?

And Alito? WTF?

[iandhr]

12. Up is down, left is right, hot is cold apparently

[lark]

16. Exactly my thoughts about those 2.

Thought they were plenty conservative on their own, but now it's almost starting to seem like they were lead by Scalia to the far right and can't get there on their own without him?

Very strange, but good for us.

[TheCowsCameHome]

22. Tony wasn't there to coach him.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

34. Or the check didn't clear n/t

[FourScore]

42. He's lost without Scalia.

Poor man, doesn't know what he's supposed to do.

[7962]

54. You'd be surprised how many decisions are 9-0, 8-1, 7-2

More than 5-4; but those are the ones that get in the news.

Of course I'm referring to past decisions with all 9 judges

[rurallib]

57. True but not often cases that are cases where repubs can change

things to their great advantage.
Often those are business cases or cases where they have no desire to really get involved.
IIRC when this was granted cert, many were thinking this would be one of those cases to make a huge change in favor of Repubs.

Anyway, my opinion

[Nevernose]

61. He wrote a seperate, concurring opinion.

The guy still found a way to be an asshole, and although I haven't read any of the opinions yet, I'd bet good money that he left plenty of exploitable loopholes in his opinion. Even Scalia would have had trouble dissenting with a straight face, since the Constitution says districts shall be apportioned based on the census (and not voter registration).

[Fast Walker 52]

9. potentially huge ramifications

[johnnyrocket]

10. Pretty disgusting what the cons were trying to do. "They're diluting our votes" was the argument...

...that's horrible on its face. I'm glad it was unanimous. The cons don't like democracy...and they certainly don't like democracy for "those people".

[YoungDemCA]

43. One phrase comes to mind: "Three fifths"

It's like they're telling people in their districts who aren't eligible to vote, "You have no political voice whatsoever, but don't fret...you help us white conservatives have more representation in Congress!"

Utterly repulsive.

[kracer20]

11. Rare to see an 8-0 decision

Do you suppose the Supremes are using this 8-0 vote as a statement that they better get a ninth...

[Hortensis]

13. ? As in a united attempt to blackmail the GOP?

Wouldn't think so. Those 4-4 rulings, now, are causing some real pinch pain. It's already cost them that California anti-union case.

[kracer20]

18. Not so much blackmail

More to send a message.

[Hortensis]

19. Gotcha, but my guess is these guys take

their decisions way too seriously for that. After all, most will live on in their effects long after they're gone.

And this was a very important decision, too, in both its philosophy and application. Requiring districts to only consider eligible voters would have overset the way we've done it in the past and thrown greater representation to the GOP. As it is, they can still choose to do so...

I just found The Atlantic's "One Person, One Vote, Eight Justices" article and am going to see what is says. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/evenwel-ruling-supreme-court/470280/

[cynzke]

70. I agree with you.

I think the last thing this SCOTUS wants with only eight members, is to get bogged down with ties and end up looking like they can't effectively function as the highest court in the land with only eight members. They will be highly MOTIVATED to find a consensus and settle cases, rather than letting cases be passed back down to lower courts.

[MisterFred]

24. Conservative die-hards won't see it that way.

They'll assume they would have lost 5-4 and that a 4-4 decision is easier to re-litigate (plus not binding precedent for the whole country - and that part's actually true).

[Hortensis]

29. :) Conservative die-hards definitely have

their own way of seeing things. And they're not going away.

[AxionExcel]

17. Why do Republicans hate America & democracy?

Why don't they just pack up and go somewhere to skulk about with other lifeforms who want to seethe in the cesspool of hate for American democracy.

[Dopers_Greed]

21. Probably would have been 8-1 a few months ago

eom

[bigbrother05]

25. Maybe 5-3. With Scalia to write the dissent, Alito & Thomas could join in

[ky_dem]

30. I like the idea that those two are simply too lazy to write a dissenting opinion

[rhett o rick]

60. I think they are lost without their big bully to follow. They are followers. nm

[Paladin]

26. Suck on THAT, Governor Greg Abbott. (nt)

[UTUSN]

27. Things have been looking up with SCALIA off the SCotUS!1

[Angel Martin]

28. Before everyone gets too excited

that this is a great victory for democracy

it would now be possible for an entire state legislative district to be composed of "noncitizens" and only one eligible voter.

In pre-Reform Bill Britain such districts were known as Rotten Boroughs.

[WillowTree]

58. And the law of unintended consequences kicks in once again.

[Angel Martin]

59. my personal favourite rotten borough / pocket borough

Old Sarum in Wiltshire, an uninhabited hill which until 1832 elected two Members of Parliament, the most notorious pocket borough. It was a possession of the Pitt family from the mid-17th century to 1802, and one of its Members of Parliament was Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder. In 1802 the Pitt family sold it for £60,000, even though the land and manorial rights were worth £700 a year at most. Painting by John Constable, 1829

[JustinL]

66. here's another unrealistic hypothetical

Imagine a state with 26 legislative districts. On the mainland there live 2 eligible voters, along with 5,000,000 noncitizens. On an offshore island there live 50 people, all eligible voters. Under the Texas plaintiffs' system, the 5,000,002 people on the mainland would be represented by 1 legislator, while the 50 people on the island would be represented by 25 legislators. Wouldn't it be fair to characterize the 25 island districts as "rotten boroughs"? All that these silly hypotheticals prove is that it's difficult to devise a fair system of representation when most people are disenfranchised. In both of the hypotheticals, the problem of rotten boroughs could be cured by granting the suffrage to noncitizens.

[HuckleB]

32. Yeah!

[ffr]

33. I cannot imagine a scenario where the answer is this obvious

Certainly the conservatives on the court could have done a better job at making really idiotic counter-intuitive votes to balance the equation. Or did Scalia really have that much influence over his fellow conservatives that, in his absence, the rest can't come up with their own stupid illogical opinions?

[progressoid]

35. Whoa. 8 - 0

[elleng]

37. Good one!

'The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled that states may count all residents, whether or not they are eligible to vote, in drawing election districts. The decision was a major statement on the meaning of a fundamental principle of the American political system, that of “one person one vote.”

As a practical matter, the ruling mostly helped Democrats.

Until this decision, the court had never resolved whether voting districts should contain the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters. Counting all people amplifies the voting power of places that have large numbers of residents who cannot vote legally — including immigrants who are here legally but are not citizens, illegal immigrants, children and prisoners. Those places tend to be urban and to vote Democratic.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/us/politics/supreme-court-one-person-one-vote.html?

[salinsky]

38. I believe it was actually 6-0 with two concurrences ...

From Thomas' separate opinion ...

I write separately because this Court has never provided a sound basis for the one-person, one-vote principle. For 50 years, the Court has struggled to define what right that principle protects.
. . .
In my view, the majority has failed to provide a sound basis for the one-person, one vote principle because no such basis exists. The Constitution does not prescribe any one basis for apportionment within States. It instead leaves States significant leeway in apportioning their own districts to equalize total population, to equalize eligible voters, or to promote any other principle consistent with a Republican form of government. The majority should recognize the futility of choosing only one of these options. The Constitution leaves the choice to the people alone, not to this Court.
. . .
The Framers also understood that unchecked majorities could lead to tyranny of the majority. As a result, many viewed antidemocratic checks as indispensable to republican government.
. . .
Of particular concern for the Framers was the majority of people violating the property rights of the minority. Madison observed that "the oat common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property."
. . .
The Court's attempt to impose its political theory upon the States has produced a morass of problems. . . . First, in imbruing one person, one vote, the Court has arrogated to the Judiciary important value judgments that the Constitution reserves to people.

Clueless and utterly lacking in self-awareness, as always.

[johnnyrocket]

47. Clarence is lost without his paisan Tony telling him how to vote.

[johnnyrocket]

46. If Scalia were there, it would have been 7-2, or even 6-3. He was that influential.

[Dont call me Shirley]

50. They knew they had better appease the voting populace. We are well aware of their dirty tricks

and they are beginning to sense that. Pacify them, so the guillotines do not get sharpened and oiled.

[Gothmog]

51. Ed Blum is an ass who wants to limit voting rights

I am glad that the SCOTUS shot this latest attack down

[Major Hogwash]

63. Nigel Tufnel called, and he said he's really really proud of you.

He's ecstatic that you've decided to turn it up, clear up to 11 Bravo.

[Chakab]

64. Somebody should post this is that other thread where there are DUers earnestly making the

claim that Republican policies aren't motivated by racial animus.

[MasonDreams]

65. WOW I didn't think any 8-0 was possible w/ Thomas

[The Wizard]

68. What would be the chances of this decision

If Scalia was still holding sway over the Court.