An interesting case was just brought before the U.S. Supreme Court that could have massive ramifications for our electoral system. It centers around the definition of “one person, one vote.” The question is, exactly what does that mean? When districts are created, right now it’s based on population, but should that definition be refined?
I was reading a recent piece by Drew Desilver of the Pew Research Center, which said the following:
“This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a Texas case that challenges the way nearly every U.S. voting district – from school boards to Congress – is drawn.
“The case asks the court to specify what the word “person” means in its “one person, one vote” rule. The outcome of the case could have major impacts on Hispanic voting strength and representation from coast to coast.
“Ever since a series of landmark rulings in the 1960s, districts have been drawn ‘as nearly of equal population as is practicable.’ (As Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority inReynolds v. Sims, ‘Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.’)
“The high court didn’t directly say what ‘equal population’ meant, but states and localities have almost invariably used total population figures. And that population is determined by the decennial census. However, the appellants in the Texas case, Evenwel v. Abbott, argue that districts instead should be drawn to have equal numbers of eligible voters. (The case involves redistricting within states, not reapportioning congressional seats among states.)
“That’s a big distinction, because in many states, districts with nearly equal total populations can have dramatically different numbers of eligible voters (that is, U.S. citizens ages 18 and older).”
Let’s repeat that again. There is a huge differentiation between just plain population and the number of eligible voters. For example, there are areas where felony arrests mean someone can be part of the population, but will never be an eligible voter.
The question that arises is, does this violate the basic sense of “taxation without representation” upon which our revolution was ignited?
Think about what happens if all of a sudden you have a segment of the population that does not count towards the drawing of voting districts. You know the main argument will be that this leads towards disenfranchisement.
However, should we be counting non-American citizens and others who aren’t eligible to vote as part of the electoral calculus determining how representatives are elected?
This chart shows how large percentages of the Asian and Hispanic populations are not eligible to vote.
I can just hear the outcries of racism and xenophobia. But the greater question begging to be considered is, do those who cannot participate in the electoral process deserve consideration in the electoral calculation? Now, I’m not talking about the 13-year-old kid, but what about the adult here in America who works, pays taxes, but is awaiting his or her legal immigration status to be completed?
You know, once upon a time, it was only male property owners who could vote in America. Of course, we evolved and suffrage was given to blacks and women. And, of course, now, every American aged 18 and above who doesn’t have a felony offense is eligible to vote. Is that the population upon which we should base the construct of districts?
So, now the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the fundamental question: what does “person” mean in the “one person, one vote” rule? Certainly there are places — and I personally know of a few — where we probably need to define if person means someone dead or alive. And there are places in America where illegal immigrants are being provided with drivers licenses, and based on the Motor Voter Law, could find themselves being registered to vote. They certainly do have a picture ID.
I will leave it here, but I want to hear from you. What do you think defines “equal population” and what is the definition of “person” in America when it comes to the voting process? Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren certainly made it clear what he thought a “person” was — a voter who elects representatives.
Stay tuned to this decision, because it could have massive ramifications and consequences, and you know doggone well, the liberal progressive socialists ain’t happy about this.
Allen West is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. During his 22-year career, he served in Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, receiving many honors including a Bronze Star. In 2010, West was elected as a member of the 112th Congress representing Florida’s 22nd District. He is a Fox News contributor and author of “Guardian of the Republic.” Mr. West also writes daily commentary on allenbwest.com.
Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published by Colonel Allen West on allenbwest.com.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/allen-west/scotus-decision-could-change-election-results-forever
Allen West (author) is a Zionist tool, and here he’s just preparing you for the inevitable supreme court decision that allows the wetbacks to vote.
The vote means nothing until the legitimacy of the voting process can be insured. As long as there are Diebold machines rigging elections, no one’s vote means a goddamn thing, but they’ll allow the wetbacks to vote to lend legitimacy to their legal and constitutional violations.
When the wetbacks can vote, the politicians can attribute their blatant anti-Americanism to a wetback majority at the polls.
Jolly’s comment above is right on, but let me take this one step further–since the USA is so damned lawless and totally corrupt and getting to the point where obeying the law could be considered a total fools errand and something only an idiot would do, does it really matter? You know the saying about voting and complaining…the time for complaining is over.
“It centers around the definition of “one person, one vote.”
I like the sound of “one communist, one round” much better.
Really? I guess the Supreme Court didn’t get the memo. The voting system is a fraud. We have no voting system. Hell, we don’t even have a legal system, so why are they even wasting everyone’s time with all of this?