• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court to hear case that could change how voting districts are drawn

Not "population", CITIZENS!!

No. Population.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The constitution, in fact, explicitly counted non-citizens in its original writing. This was in an era where only land owners could vote, and they still counted all people.
 
Well I actually don't believe this case to be activist, citizens united was an activist decision, this one not so much, and a case like this is essential given an activist decision in the 70s (Reynolds) there is legitimate contention here, and it's a valid issue to sort out, I actually think the justices will uphold the status quo though, the census doesn't record the information nessecary to make the eligible voting registration system work

I predict this ulta conservative scouts will make yet another activist de vision and change this wording because it would shift the power towards the more rural republican areas.
 
I predict this ulta conservative scouts will make yet another activist de vision and change this wording because it would shift the power towards the more rural republican areas.

I actually think the biggest transfer would go to suburbs which are marginally republican but not by much.

Contrary to popular belief many rural areas are quite blue
That being said I think it's a reasonable contention, why should non citizens be "represented" in congress. If in a district of 700,000 people just 100,000 are pulling the strings those people in effect get 7 times the representation as other districts because non citizens are not actively participating in the process it allows a small core interested parties to get amplified power.

If the opinions of say the crowds of mainly illegal non citizens in Southern California counted then half of California's congressional delegation would oppose gay marriage and abortion as just an example
 
Last edited:
I predict this ulta conservative scouts will make yet another activist de vision and change this wording because it would shift the power towards the more rural republican areas.

You mean as the Framers did by giving all states two senators, regardless of population, thus enhancing the power of rural areas?
 
I actually think the biggest transfer would go to suburbs which are marginally republican but not by much. Contrary to popular belief many rural areas are quite blue That being said I think it's a reasonable contention, why should non citizens be "represented" in congress. If in a district of 700,000 people just 100,000 are pulling the strings those people in effect get 7 times the representation as other districts because non citizens are not actively participating in the process it allows a small core interested parties to get amplified power. If the opinions of say the crowds of mainly illegal non citizens in Southern California counted then half of California's congressional delegation would oppose gay marriage and abortion as just an example
Children are citizens too. Resident aliens are members of our community too.
 
Why would there be any reason to draw voting districts based on anything other than the population of CITIZENS?? We are the ones who vote and are represented by our elected officials, so why should anyone outside that group be included in the decisions on voting districts?? Non-citizens have no voice in our gov't, just the protection of our laws and that's the way it needs to be (and is in pretty much every country on the planet).

Some citizens can't vote. Maybe they're not registered or have a felony. Some people just don't vote or don't think their vote counts. They are citizens nonetheless.

I think you are assuming every adult who isn't registered must be an illegal immigrant. That's not the case. In fact, many illegal immigrants aren't even counted in the population, since they live in the shadows. No utilities in their name, no home ownership, paid in cash, etc.

If the S.Ct. finds that the people counted have to be registered to vote, that may backfire on the conservatives by causing a large number of people who aren't registered to get registered. If it hits the hispanics hard, that will end the Republicans chances of getting hispanic votes for the foreseeable future. Marco Rubio or no Marco Rubio.
 
Some citizens can't vote. Maybe they're not registered or have a felony. Some people just don't vote or don't think their vote counts. They are citizens nonetheless.

I think you are assuming every adult who isn't registered must be an illegal immigrant. That's not the case. In fact, many illegal immigrants aren't even counted in the population, since they live in the shadows. No utilities in their name, no home ownership, paid in cash, etc.

If the S.Ct. finds that the people counted have to be registered to vote, that may backfire on the conservatives by causing a large number of people who aren't registered to get registered. If it hits the hispanics hard, that will end the Republicans chances of getting hispanic votes for the foreseeable future. Marco Rubio or no Marco Rubio.

????? I never said VOTING citizens, in fact if you read back through my posts, I clearly refer to ALL CITIZENS, including minors.
 
Back
Top Bottom