• 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

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064662542 said:
The democratic process involves citizens voting for their elected officials, not illegal aliens, other non-citizens, or children under the age of 18. As a lawyer I thought you would probably know that. I guess not.

This has nothing to do with voting. It has to do with redistricting. As an adult, I thought you would be able to read the OP and comprehend the words written there. I guess not.
 
I wish they could make a decision regarding gerrymandering as well, but sadly the constitution is clear on that one.

They kind of can/are, one of the other voting related cases at the Supreme Court right now is Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Basically the Legislature got pissy they couldn't gerrymander because of the citizens of Arizona voted to have an independent (sort of) panel handle redistricting in the state. Since they can't just change the law; iirc, citizens of Arizona also voted to restrict the state from doing that with propositions, why they legislature went to the feds when medical marijuana was passed by the voters, even though they boast about "sticking it to the feds, and state rights," so damn often.

Here is the arguement:
Arizona tried that experiment with a ballot measure, Proposition 106, but the state’s legislature — relying on a literal reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause — has fought back, seeking to reclaim the redistricting power for itself. That clause assigns the duty of drawing election maps to “the legislature” of a state, but that is not further defined.

Over and over again, the Arizona legislature’s lawyer in the Court on Monday, Washington attorney Paul D. Clement, insisted that “legislature” in constitutional terms has “a certain meaning”: it can only mean a “representative body” that writes a state’s laws. So, he argued, it is unconstitutional for the people of a state to hand off congressional redistricting to “an unelected and unaccountable” state commission.
Argument analysis: Literalism vs. the power of the people : SCOTUSblog

So, in a way it can be at least a sort of ruling on gerrymandering, killing independent panels will pretty much give full sail ahead to all the gerrymandering a state legislature wants. EDIT: Finished reading the above link, seems more fit to say that the courts are basically going to rule in favor of gerrymandering, because **** you voters!


As to the OP, reading the article it doesn't sound like a bad idea, as long as they are counting citizens (including children) and not just voters. Not that I'd be overly pleased with more affluent areas getting additional power, but if that is the way the numbers work then it's how it works (sadly). I also agree it seems more a political move, not as bad as the Arizona one but still, then a concern for accuracy and proper representation.
 
Last edited:
Because it's arbitrary and doesn't matter, and this is only a partisan move to weaken liberal voting blocs through gerrymandering. It has nothing to do with accuracy or principle. If we were interested in that, our districts would be drawn by a computer to be as uniform and compact as possible and not look like this.

View attachment 67184834

Depends on how you define "gerrymandering".
 
Well i'm guessing this would eliminate the rolls for prisoners and minors as well then, which should reduce the # of representatives and electoral votes in red states, since half of the population is in jail with 15 kids
 
:shrug: Honestly, don't care. Until such time a they are citizens of the US then they should have no say what so ever in our policies. The reason for this is simple. To keep foreign governments from meddling in our affairs as much as possible.

yes i'm sure every illegal immigrant has castro on speedial
 
This is one of those cases where I expect a straight partisan vote, as it is all about partisan power. This court will side with anything that allows more conservatives to get into offices, even if it further subverts the democratic process.

Then if it sided with something that would allow more liberals to get into office that would not subvert the democratic process?
 
I always learn something new on these questions by going back to the Constitution:

Article 1, Section 2:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

Obviously, the 26th Amendment standardized the age restriction to 18, which was relevant in my home state of PA which has the requirement that representatives be at least 21 years old. However, Pennsylvania also has a residency requirement ("They must be citizens and inhabitants of the state for four years, living in their respective districts for one year.") Seems to me that when voting for Representative in PA, that you should only be able to do so if you too met the residence requirement. Check your own state legislature requirements and see how relevant they are being applied according to Article 1, Section 2.

As for who gets counted in making up the districts, it appears to be whatever method Congress decides: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3).

Then the 14th Amendment came along and hit us with: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." Seems pretty definitive to me that it counts everyone except those untaxed Indians.
 
Because it's arbitrary and doesn't matter, and this is only a partisan move to weaken liberal voting blocs through gerrymandering. It has nothing to do with accuracy or principle. If we were interested in that, our districts would be drawn by a computer to be as uniform and compact as possible and not look like this.

View attachment 67184834
"Arbitrary?" Seriously?? Why should voting districts be based on anything other than the number of citizens in them?? Non-citizens get the protection of our laws, but they have NO voice in making them and their presence should not influence this part of our gov't's structure. Adding non-citizens into the equation means more voting districts with the power to decide how that district votes concentrated into fewer hands in districts with high numbers of non-citizens. Excluding the non-citizens means fewer voting districts, but with the power equally distributed. I'll willingly agree that there is some political motivation behind this, but at the end of the day, it still makes sense to do it.

I agree that voting districts should be drawn by computer, in fact I believe that I may have been the one (here at DP) who first brought it up.
 
I'm HONESTLY ... shocked... more people aren't seeing the slippery-slope on this.

Explain this to us please... Citizens are the only people in this country who get to vote. Using non-citizens opens the door to making jerrymandering even more prevalent. As an extreme example, think of a voting district being drawn up that has 100,000 people in it, 99,999 are non-citizens and one is a citizen. The one citizen now determines how that entire district votes. Using non-citizens means that voting districts are no longer equally populated with potential voters (citizens). Why wouldn't you want the voting districts to be equal in their level of influence??
 
Because it's arbitrary and doesn't matter, and this is only a partisan move to weaken liberal voting blocs through gerrymandering. It has nothing to do with accuracy or principle. If we were interested in that, our districts would be drawn by a computer to be as uniform and compact as possible and not look like this.

View attachment 67184834

Ohio is a model of excellence compared to Maryland and the Chicago area.

I agree that they should be drawn by computer. All of the artificial tenets that need to be met currently( urban v suburban v rural, ethnicity ) are the main reasons districts look like ass.

il04.jpg
 
Not an issue I have ever thought of. But I think our representatives should represent EVERYONE in their district, not just the voters.

That would be reasonable except that we have an administration that is allowing illegal
aliens by the million into the country.
 
And people under 18.

They should represent everyone because people from all the groups you mention participate in the community. They contribute their labor. They own property. They utilize resources. They pay taxes, even if it is just sales tax.

My wife isn't a citizen yet. I don't think she should be able to vote until she has that citizenship but I damn sure think our representatives should keep her interests in mind, just as they do my children, who can't vote yet either.

In that case an adult with 10 kids is counted 10x more than a single person with no kids.
 
Then if it sided with something that would allow more liberals to get into office that would not subvert the democratic process?

More liberals should be in office. They win more votes. In 2012, Democratic house candidates won a million and a half more votes than Republican ones, and yet somehow Republicans won 17 more seats. This case is about allowing more gerrymandering so that Republicans can win more seats with fewer votes.

Ohio is a model of excellence compared to Maryland and the Chicago area.

I agree that they should be drawn by computer. All of the artificial tenets that need to be met currently( urban v suburban v rural, ethnicity ) are the main reasons districts look like ass.

I picked Ohio because it's a swing state and I wanted to avoid listening to people whine that it's a Republican or a Democratic problem. Granted, current gerrymandering DOES favor Republicans, but it could just as easily be the other way. We shouldn't be gerrymandering at all.

"Arbitrary?" Seriously?? Why should voting districts be based on anything other than the number of citizens in them?? Non-citizens get the protection of our laws, but they have NO voice in making them and their presence should not influence this part of our gov't's structure. Adding non-citizens into the equation means more voting districts with the power to decide how that district votes concentrated into fewer hands in districts with high numbers of non-citizens. Excluding the non-citizens means fewer voting districts, but with the power equally distributed. I'll willingly agree that there is some political motivation behind this, but at the end of the day, it still makes sense to do it.

I don't believe for a second that you would support this so vehemently if it weren't a partisan attempt to reduce the representation of Latinos, and thus Democratic voters. If it could be somehow used to hurt Muslims it would be a trifecta for you.
 
More liberals should be in office. They win more votes. In 2012, Democratic house candidates won a million and a half more votes than Republican ones, and yet somehow Republicans won 17 more seats. This case is about allowing more gerrymandering so that Republicans can win more seats with fewer votes.

I appreciate the response but that didn't answer the question.
 
I don't believe for a second that you would support this so vehemently if it weren't a partisan attempt to reduce the representation of Latinos, and thus Democratic voters. If it could be somehow used to hurt Muslims it would be a trifecta for you.

So we have a current situation that allows a smaller number of voters to decide for the larger number of voters and someone wants to correct that and it's partisan?? What's partisan is defending this kind of thing. How about answering the very simple question that I asked and is the CORE of this issue:

Why should voting districts be based on anything other than the number of citizens in them??
 
fmw said:
Then if it sided with something that would allow more liberals to get into office that would not subvert the democratic process?

More liberals should be in office. They win more votes. In 2012, Democratic house candidates won a million and a half more votes than Republican ones, and yet somehow Republicans won 17 more seats. This case is about allowing more gerrymandering so that Republicans can win more seats with fewer votes.

So subverting the voting process of our REPUBLIC takes a back seat to getting more liberals elected... And you called me partisan...
 
In what universe would you count people for voting purposes that aren't eligible to vote in the first place?

I can't believe this even requires debate.

Liberals have no bounds for their underhandedness.
 
So subverting the voting process of our REPUBLIC takes a back seat to getting more liberals elected... And you called me partisan...

Are you even literate? It's already subverted. This thread is about people wanting to subvert it more. If it were less subverted, less gerrymandered, more liberals would be elected. They get more votes. A lot more votes. But they're gerrymandered together so those votes don't win seats.
 
Are you even literate? It's already subverted. This thread is about people wanting to subvert it more. If it were less subverted, less gerrymandered, more liberals would be elected. They get more votes. A lot more votes. But they're gerrymandered together so those votes don't win seats.

Teh subversion in this case was the inclusion of non-citizens in drawing voting districts, this simply tries to reverse that and bring back a measure of integrity in this piece of the political game that drawing voting districts has become.

Now then -how about we do this ONE MORE TIME??

Why should voting districts be based on anything other than the number of citizens in them??
 
If you can't win an election on billions from the Koch brothers, on pushing for voter ID laws even though voter fraud is rare and gerrymandering, you have to resort to other tactics. Lord knows being behind ideas and policies that make the majority of the American population want to vote for you is a nonstarter. :roll:

Wow ! It took 46 posts for a partisan libby to bring up the Koch brothers, as if they had anything to do with the topic.

Congrats !
 
Back
Top Bottom