Supreme Court appears poised to order a big shakeup in how election districts are drawn

[cali]

The Supreme Court sounded prepared Tuesday to order a major shift in how political power is allocated in this country, one that could give more clout to rural and mostly Republican areas at the expense of Democratic-dominated cities.

The justices heard arguments in a Texas case that could force all 50 states to change the way they draw election districts for members of the House of Representatives, state legislatures, city councils and other local bodies.

At issue before the court was the basic question of who gets counted when election districts are drawn: Is it all people, including children, prisoners and immigrants who are not eligible to vote? Or is it only adult citizens who are eligible voters?


<snip>

In the case heard Tuesday, two Texas Republicans who live in rural districts say they are denied the "equal protection of the laws" because the state's election districts undercount the votes of U.S. citizens and overcount those who live in districts with large numbers of immigrants.

Their lawyers said the court should clarify its "one person, one vote" rule, set in the 1960s, and tell states they should give "equal weight to equal numbers of voters."

The court's conservative justices, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, appeared to agree with the challengers.

<snip>
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-election-districts-20151208-story.html

Scary bad.

[saturnsring]

1. they are supposed to respresent everyone so everyone should be counted

[Nevernose]

2. Disastrous to those who care about human beings

To those who only care about money and winning elections, a big win.

[cali]

6. Horrifying.

[KamaAina]

3. "The court's conservative justices, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy"

When exactly did Justice Kennedy stop being conservative?

[cali]

4. What this boils down to:

Will it remain equal representation for equal numbers of people in each district or will it become equal representation for equal numbers of eligible voters, discounting representation for children, undocumented immigrants, those with green cards and prisoners?

[KamaAina]

5. Hey, I know! Why don't we count some people as three-fifths of a person for this purpose?

Oh, wait a minute...

[cali]

8. Spot on

[hifiguy]

13. Just wait.

Somewhere in the Old Confederacy a ten-cent legal mind is working on the brief as we speak.

[zipplewrath]

15. And this fundamentally why they should decide in favor of people

Especially for any of the "original intent" folks, it is clear that the original constitution intended for it to be apportioned according to the number of PEOPLE and not the number of VOTERS, or else the whole 3/5ths thing wouldn't have mattered, since slaves couldn't vote anyway.

[KamaAina]

7. An unintended consequence of this might be more states restoring voting rights to prisoners

the way Massachusetts does.

edit: Another might be an increased push to get immigrants naturalized, like Rudy Giuliani did to fight back against Congress cutting off benefits to non-citizens.

[cali]

9. What might it doin my state where prisoners have the right to vote while incarcerated

[KamaAina]

10. Basically, other states would be copying you

Would that they would do so across the board (she's in Vermont )!

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Most States do. Vermont lets prisoners vote while in prison, so does on other State which evades my

brain right now.

[KamaAina]

12. I believe it is Massachusetts

as I mentioned in the OP.

[cali]

16. It's Maine

[LonePirate]

14. If the plaintiffs win, Citizens United will be the least of our worries.

Repubs would pick up a few more state legislatures and they could conceivably start amending the U.S. Constitution via the convention proposal and state legislature ratification route. This is an absolute nightmare scenario for us.

[cyberswede]

17. Shouldn't each state decide how they do it?

I fucking hate Republicans.

[yellowcanine]

18. The Constitution has never been interpreted this way before. Redistricting is supposed to use

Census data. The Census counts everyone, not just eligible voters. This basically goes against 200 plus years of Constitutional precedent.