Posted on 12/09/2015 12:18:56 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON -- A separate redistricting case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday has a Hispanic congressmen worried it could lead to giving the majority Anglo population a new tool to maintain political control despite changing demographics.
The case challenges the practice in Texas to use census population to divide up the state into different legislative districts. That system, the same as used in Arizona, is based on a head count done every decade by the U.S. Census.
But challengers contend that's not fair, as population does not equate with ability to vote. So they are asking the justices to allow states to use some other metric, like citizenship or even voter registration.
Congressman Ruben Gallego, speaking as a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said that would lead to unfair results.
"The concept in the United States is that you have always been able to get representation whether or not you are allowed to vote, whether or not you are registered to vote, whether or not you are in the process of becoming a voter,'' he said at a press conference Tuesday in front of the court building.
"You still have a right to representation, you still have a right to petition your government,'' Gallego said. "By giving power to one person more so than another by dint of registration you are disempowering, disenfranchising many other people.''
That is the converse of what challengers in the Texas case are arguing.
In their legal arguments to the court, they say the current system, in essence, allows adoption of a map for the state Senate "even if 30 of the districts each contained one eligible voter and the 31st district contained every other eligible voter in the state.'' That, they say, violates the constitutional requirement of one person-one vote.
Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro of Texas said he foresees danger if the justices let each state determine who should be counted.
"If the plaintiffs win their case, that would be a strong symbol and signal from the highest court in the land that millions of Americans don't count in our system of government,'' Castro said. And he contends there's a political motive behind all that.
"It's an ultraconservative attempt for people to choose their own electorate,'' he said.
"It amounts to political engineering and social engineering,'' Castro continued. He said it allows those in power to define who to count in ways they think it will help them win, whether eligible voters or even actual voters, meaning those who show up at the polls.
Gallego sees racial motives behind this as he does behind other changes in voting laws.
"They are all a series of attacks to assure that the rising American electorate does not take hold of power,'' he said.
"The conservative factions of our political voice is not attractive to the rising American electorate,'' Gallego continued. "So if they cannot win their vote they are going to try to diminish the vote.''
"......The second case before the Supreme Court on Tuesday originated in Texas, where state senate districts are based on overall population numbers.
Two voters, from two different state districts, are suing based on the argument that districts should be drawn according to the number of eligible voters in a geographic area -- not overall population numbers. The argument goes: the votes of eligible voters are diluted in districts full of ineligible residents like illegal aliens and felons.
Critics of the lawsuit say it makes no sense to disregard those who cannot vote but still need representation, such as children and legal permanent residents.
There's also the question of how Texas would accurately assess how many ineligible residents live in any particular area. Once again, the case will require the justices to look at the concept of "one-person, one-vote" against the backdrop of Equal Protection Clause consideration.
Decisions in both cases are expected in June 2016."
This answers the question “why are these blue-state Mayors so danged eager to take as many Syrian refugees as they can?”
Cause the Census counts PERSONS and not CITIZENS. A warm body, be it terrorist, illegal, or whatever, counts for redistricting purposes. Importing warm bodies stems the flow of Congressional seats and electoral votes to red states.
In other words, they want illegals to have political power and control elections, even though they can’t vote.
Remember also that illegals presently are counted in determining how many electoral votes a state has for the presidential elections.
That is clearly not true. Has he ever taken a US History class?
Follow the law, however racist in effect and if the result doesn't give democrats a handicap they complain regardless. It's a field day for the lawyers, and I've yet to meet a reporter who understood either the law or the cases.
Not a single one.
And not that many judges, for that matter.
“Cause the Census counts PERSONS and not CITIZENS. A warm body, be it terrorist, illegal, or whatever, counts for redistricting purposes. Importing warm bodies stems the flow of Congressional seats and electoral votes to red states.”
But that doesn’t mean the Constitution requires electoral votes and redistricting to be based on PERSONS, not CITIZENS.
Are all hispanics degenerates who hate this country? Just askin’...
Absolutely, Mexico should be able to decide what is best for americans living in Arizona.
How many of them vote for Republicans, then subtract that number from the total should give you a pretty good number to work with.
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.