Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge in 'one person, one vote' case
Source: Reuters
The Supreme Court on Monday endorsed the way Texas draws its legislative districts based on total population and not just eligible voters - the same method used by all 50 states - rejecting a conservative challenge in a case focusing on the legal principle of "one person, one vote."
The eight-justice court unanimously rebuffed the challenge spearheaded by a conservative legal activist that could have shifted influence in state legislative races away from urban areas that tend to be racially diverse and favor Democrats to rural ones predominantly with white voters who often back Republicans.
Two of the court's conservatives, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, concurred only in the judgment and did sign on to the opinion authored by liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The court is one justice short following the Feb. 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, but the unanimous vote suggested his presence would not have substantially affected the outcome.
The court said Texas' method of drawing districts does not violate the long-established legal principle of "one person, one vote" endorsed by the Supreme Court in the 1960s during the era of the U.S. civil rights movement.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-voters-idUSKCN0X11GS
World | Mon Apr 4, 2016 10:49am EDT
WASHINGTON | BY LAWRENCE HURLEY
EDIT: Updated story
Original Reuters story: U.S. top court rejects conservative challenge in 'one person, one vote' case
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)rurallib
(62,448 posts)that was going to be the next republican arrow in the disenfranchisement of americans.
Democat
(11,617 posts)This was a right wing dream to further disenfranchise non-Republican voters.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)to try and turn the Tide,,,,, Texas is slowly turning Blue and I lov it!
houston16revival
(953 posts)Scalia would have made it at least 6-3 if not 5-4
Justice Alito is showing slight signs of being more common sense
or does he just join the majority in decisions that have no hope of
ever flipping
I'm not a Court watcher
They say age changes people, justices as well
We can hope
strategery blunder
(4,225 posts)I bet that the Arizona primary election fiasco left egg on the faces of those who had previously voted to weaken the Voting Rights Act. Especially since it came so soon after that ideologically-split decision.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Raster
(20,998 posts)...the reich-wing agenda.
ROT. IN. HELL. FAT. TONY.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)think
(11,641 posts)By David G. Savage - April 4 2016
A conservative effort to shift political power away from fast-growing communities of immigrants fizzled Monday when the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the current widely-used method of counting all persons when drawing up election districts.
The justices ruled that creating voting districts on the basis of the total population is constitutional and need not change.
History, our decisions and settled practice in all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions point in the same direction, said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The outcome preserves the status quo and is likely to be welcomed by Democrats and immigrants-rights advocates.
Read more:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-voting-districts-20160404-story.html
forest444
(5,902 posts)is a gift that keeps on giving (I'm sure his family thinks so too).
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)Somewhere in the country, one of them is proposing that voting rights be tied to property or income, or coming up with a new way to disenfranchise Dems I can't yet imagine. They know they won't win the war of ideas so they try to change the battle.
24601
(3,962 posts)population goes up while eligible voters do not.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Maybe a state gets an extra house seat...maybe. but that doesn't mean it'll be a Dem seat, since whatever body that draws the districts still has wide latitude to do so.