Skip to comments.Supreme Court upholds West Virginia redistricting
Posted on 09/25/2012 3:48:21 PM PDT by SMGFan
- The Supreme Court upheld West Virginia's congressional restricting map as constitutional on Tuesday, overturning a lower court order that found the plan violated the principle of "one person, one vote."
In an unsigned opinion, the court said that a federal district court panel had erred in voiding the map in January and had failed to give appropriate deference to the Democratic-controlled legislature that had crafted it.
West Virginia had argued that it had legitimate interests in allowing small variations in populations served by each district such as making districts compact, not splitting counties between districts, and avoiding contests between incumbents.
The drawing of congressional districts often generates litigation because of its potential to reduce political power of various constituents, including political parties and individual municipalities or counties.
The Jefferson County Commission claimed that West Virginia's plan appeared to dilute the voting power in the state's faster-growing Eastern Panhandle by splitting that region up.
The state's plan also had a population variance between the largest and smallest districts of 0.79 percent of the population of the average district, in line with plans that the Supreme Court had upheld in the past.
But the Supreme Court said it was not essential that a state draw districts with "precise mathematical equality" so long as small variations serve legitimate objectives.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I realize one man, one vote is a principle, but since when was it the law? Whoever it is tha holds the pribciple, I certainly don’t agree with it. And I don’t remember losing the argument. If it were the law, goodbye electoral college.
The House of Representatives is apportioned among the states based on population under Article I, Section II of the Constitution. The more people a state has, the more Representatives it gets. So California gets 53 Representatives and Wyoming only gets 1.
Each state gets two Senators regardless of population. So California and Wyoming have the same number of votes in the Senate.
The electoral college is basically a compromise between the two. Each state gets a number of electors equal to the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators. So California gets 55 and Wyoming gets 3.
If the electoral college is ever abolished, then the most populous states (currently California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois) will basically decide who the President will be.
I disagree with your conclusion. Believe me, I absolutely oppose abolishing the electoral college for a whole variety of reasons. BUT absolishing the electoral college would probably decrease, not increase, the influence of states like California and Texas. Look at it this way, California’s a majority Democrat state. They’re going to win under the current system and there’s no incentive for Republicans to challenge their win because under California law all the electoral votes are in a bundle and go to which ever party wins, whether it’s by 1 vote or 10 million votes.
Suppose, however, the electoral college was eliminated and it was all according to popular vote. Then there might be an incentive for Republicans to go in and encourage California Republicans to vote. Look at it this way — under the current system Democrats get 100% of California’s votes; under a different system, Democrats wouldn’t get nearly that proportion.
Now think about the states that get ignored because they might be mid sized and are incredibly one sided. There’s no incentive for even the winning party to go in to that state and encourage turnout. But if the electoral college is gone, then there’s much more incentive to go in and try to ramp up your winning margin because all those votes could be used to counter losses from other states.
As I said, I oppose absolution of the electoral college — but for other reasons: It somewhat contains electoral fraud (think Chicago); it encourages a two party system (rather than a multi-party system, which is inherently destabilizing). There’s more but you get the drift.
Sorry about my typo. Towards the end, I should have said, “abolition” not “absolution.” On the other hand, there’s a certain amount of humor with the first version.