Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Progressing the Constitution - One Man One Vote III
ArticleVBlog ^ | July 9th 2018 | Rodney Dodsworth

Posted on 07/09/2018 12:52:46 AM PDT by Jacquerie

I long for the days when federal courts distanced themselves from political and societal matters. Thanks to scotus, the federal judiciary is wrapped around the axle of several issues that do not lend themselves to judicial standards but toward personal policy preferences that are best dealt with by the political branches of the state or national governments.

The shape, size and composition of state legislative and congressional districts is one such matter.

Congressional and state assembly/senate districts of unequal population were common until a couple of scotus decisions in the early 1960s. “One Man One Vote” (OMOV) emerged from these decisions. On the surface, who can disagree with the concept? I don’t. What roils originalists is the never-ending involvement of the judiciary in political matters, and few things are more political than electoral district design.

Such is the modern judicial mess of representation, gerrymandering, and race/party considerations as applied to congressional districts, I encourage the reader to scan at least the first few paragraphs of Gill et al. v. Whitford et al., a June 2018 scotus decision. In Gill, some Wisconsin Democrats challenged a statewide redistricting plan because they felt that legislative seats held by democrats should reflect the state-wide party registration. Despite admitting, “It is a case about group political interests, not individual legal rights,” scotus kept this nonsense alive by remanding the case back to the district court “to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes.”

Before OMOV, electoral districts of equal population just weren’t that big a deal and certainly weren’t the business of any court. Our colonial ancestors adopted, more or less, the English parliamentary approach of allotting legislative seats. Counties and the few towns . . .

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: clickbait; onemanonevote; scotus

1 posted on 07/09/2018 12:52:46 AM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

One man - One Vote gave us CALIFORNIA where the densely populated coastal area has the ONLY voice in state government.

Changing the electoral college will simply mean the two largest populated state will win every election regardless of what the rest want.

Does anyone think the politicians would ever visit small states again in an election - of course not.

Please keep your hands off my Consitution

2 posted on 07/09/2018 3:26:55 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN (I am not an expert in anything, and my opinion is just that, an opinion. I may be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

This perverted interpretation allows big cities to dominate whole states politically even though much/most of the state is contrarily aligned to the city. The Constitution’s guarantee of “a republican form of government” ought to be interpreted as state legislatures being structured in parallel to the federal structure, i.e., a bicameral legislature with one house being based on equal population and the other based on land area. This would balance (the key element of the US Constitution, balance) the interests of urban vs. rural so that neither could dominate. What we have now are city states not too different from ancient times - an all-powerful urban center which completely dominating the surrounding countryside.

3 posted on 07/09/2018 3:37:31 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck ( Socialism consumes EVERYTHING!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Thanks for posting. Informative. Educational.

4 posted on 07/09/2018 4:51:01 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; All

Fine. Keep OMOV. Except move the districts to a ‘per county’.

The cities will no longer dominate the masses, the State, as a whole, would need to join up together...

5 posted on 07/09/2018 8:36:24 AM PDT by i_robot73 (One could not count the number of *solutions*, if only govt followed\enforced the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

Thanks PG!

6 posted on 07/09/2018 9:30:47 AM PDT by Jacquerie (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

Next week I hope to look behind the curtain of the 14th Amendment regarding scotus’ equal protection abuse. The dissenting opinions by Frankfurter and Harlan in the early 1960s are as good as those written by Clarence Thomas.

7 posted on 07/09/2018 9:34:52 AM PDT by Jacquerie (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson