One person, one vote still in effect
I haven't seen this diaried, and it's kind of important. The Supreme Court stopped a new scheme the Republicans came up with to try to dilute people's vote.
Some background: Republicans in Texas (where else) went to court to have local and congressional districts based not on total population but on voting population.
Simplistically, the Court's opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, reaffirmed how districts have been drawn since the 1st census - based in total population. But according to ScotusBlog legalistically it wasn't a slam dunk win because how the case was presented did not give them an opportunity to establish a new constitutional right.
Interestingly, the Court's decision was unanimous. However Alito and Thomas wrote their own opinions.
Read more at ScotusBlog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/opinion-analysis-leaving-a-constitutio...
Comments
The absence of Scalia is having a significant impact
In oral arguments, it sounded like he was ready to side it's the conservatives. Given how rudderless Alito, Thomas, etc., are without him, it makes one wonder.
Still 8-0 is a hell of a statement. I haven't read the two concurring opinions yet, but I will.
Thanks for this.
I hope Scalia...
Buried face down in his grave, is seeing the world as a better place without him...
It may be cold to say that, but no one will change my opinion...
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,
he is facing the right way for his destination
A win or a respite?
If I read the excerpts correctly, the SC said it was okay to draw districts based on population rather than voters; however, it seemed to pointedly remain uncommitted about the legality of using voter count as a basis. Having left the door open, I would expect that someone will try it, though maybe the folks bringing the suit were fringe even for the GOP (if that's possible, except on their "left" flank).
I'm concerned this isn't good at all.
One of the things the GOP has been trying to do is to draw districts that include non-voting prison populations into the equation to create overwhelmingly red voting districts.
Does this decision give a green light to such attempts?
I'm not sure exactly what the plaintiffs were up to here, nor what this decision means exactly.
Anyone willing to try to educate me on this?
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU