Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court rules in redistricting case: Illegal immigrants, other non-citizens can be counted
The Washington Times ^ | April 4, 2016 | Stephan Dinan

Posted on 04/04/2016 8:45:59 AM PDT by jazusamo

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that illegal immigrants and other non-citizens can be counted when states draw their legislative districts, shooting down a challenge by Texas residents who said their own voting power was being diluted.

The ruling does not grant non-citizens power to vote, but says the principle of “one person, one vote” doesn’t require localities to only count those who are actually eligible to vote.

Justice Ruth Baden Ginsburg, writing for the court, said even though only eligible voters are supposed to cast ballots, elected officials represent all people within their districts, and it is that act of representation, not the election itself, that the boundaries are drawn to.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; census; illegals; illegalsinvasion; legislativedistricts; noncitizens; redistricting; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
Deport all illegals, problem solved.
1 posted on 04/04/2016 8:45:59 AM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Figures. Anything that dilutes the votes of eligible citizens is gold to the Marxists.


2 posted on 04/04/2016 8:48:16 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

So if you run a sanctuary city you get more seats in congress? Is that what this means?


3 posted on 04/04/2016 8:48:20 AM PDT by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Bit of picking and choosing in the article.

The people also included children, non-registered, people not eligible even though citizens. Quite frankly, that was not the “big count”.

This wasn’t a “let’s give illegals power” case. It was a ridiculous premise from the get go and was, properly, slammed from the Dist Ct through SCOTUS.


4 posted on 04/04/2016 8:48:23 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

In other words, shift the balance in state legislatures to the democrats.


5 posted on 04/04/2016 8:49:17 AM PDT by henkster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Are we there yet?


6 posted on 04/04/2016 8:50:11 AM PDT by Ray76 (Judge Roy Moore for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: major-pelham
So if you run a sanctuary city you get more seats in congress? Is that what this means?

Yup. The concept of the "nation" is dead. Pretty soon, third worlders back in their own lands of Bolivian and Ghana et al, will be deciding what you are allowed to say and how you will be allowed to live.

7 posted on 04/04/2016 8:52:17 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (Trump <s>Cruz</s> or Lose 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: major-pelham

Yes... in theory you could have a district that was 99.99% illegals and not eligible voters.... so a congressional district that has only one eligible voter


8 posted on 04/04/2016 8:52:50 AM PDT by tophat9000 (King G(OP)eorge III has no idea why the Americans are in rebellion... teach him why)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Constitution says persons, not citizens.

Our Founding Fathers appear to have actually gotten something wrong there.


9 posted on 04/04/2016 8:53:10 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

You’re right however it’s admitted there are 12 million illegals here and that number is probably closer to 25 million, in my view those millions don’t deserve representation.


10 posted on 04/04/2016 8:53:18 AM PDT by jazusamo (Have YOU Donated to Free Republic? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

“Are we there yet?”

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled ... illegal immigrants and other non-citizens ... shooting down a challenge by Texas residents ...

Yep.


11 posted on 04/04/2016 8:53:46 AM PDT by jessduntno (The mind of a liberal...deceit, desire for control, greed, contradiction and fueled by hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I notice how cavalier they are about throwing the Constitution and rule of law down the sewer.

I guess without judge Scalia gone, the way is clear to finish off what’s left of this once great Republic.


12 posted on 04/04/2016 8:55:34 AM PDT by MichaelCorleone (Jesus Christ is not a religion. He's the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

The nation has gone to hell.


13 posted on 04/04/2016 8:55:44 AM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

You could nevertheless reasonably interpret “persons” as “Citizens”

After all, this Court somehow found “homosexual marriage” and abortion on demand in the language.


14 posted on 04/04/2016 8:56:19 AM PDT by A_Former_Democrat (This household proudly voted for TRUMP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Please bump the Freepathon or click above to donate or become a monthly donor!

15 posted on 04/04/2016 8:56:25 AM PDT by jazusamo (Have YOU Donated to Free Republic? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
No, they didn't.

Very few people were eligible to vote in the early days of the U.S., so there was clearly a disconnect between the number of eligible voters and the number of people. Proportional representation was based on population, not voting eligibility.

I'm surprised this case even made it up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The unanimous verdict indicates that this probably wasn't even a matter of serious dispute.

16 posted on 04/04/2016 8:56:38 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Sometimes I feel like I've been tied to the whipping post.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: major-pelham

California has an additional 4-5 representatives in the House because of so many illegal aliens there.


17 posted on 04/04/2016 8:56:48 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Liberals are the Taliban of America, trying to tear down any symbol that they don't like.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
How is a non-citizen, illegally present, entitled to any "representation" by an elected official? Officials should not be responding in any fashion to persons who are not citizens or legal permanent residents with an established "domicile" in their respective districts.

I'm a resident of Idaho. I had to work in San Diego for a while, but was not a "resident of California". I was subjected to income taxation by California (and Idaho and Nebraska), yet my only valid call on an elected official was in Idaho where I own my home. It's a travesty that I'm compelled to pay income tax to 3 states, yet only allowed representation where I'm a resident. How is that persons who are not legal residents get counted for purposes of determining proportional representation in the US House of Representatives or apportionment of state representatives? If you can't vote, why is your presence a factor in determining representation? It should be apportioned based on the number of legal voters. The court screwed up this opinion.

18 posted on 04/04/2016 8:57:17 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Actually, they don't have representation if they aren't allowed to vote. There are some Congressional districts in Third World dumps in Southern California, parts of New York City, and Chicago where voter turnout is a small fraction of the overall population base because most of the people living in those districts aren't eligible to vote.
19 posted on 04/04/2016 8:58:51 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Sometimes I feel like I've been tied to the whipping post.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
If you can't vote, why is your presence a factor in determining representation?

If you have two parents (both U.S. citizens registered to vote) with five kids in a household, should this count as two people for the purpose of Congressional representation, or seven?

I don't think there was ever a time in U.S. history when the answer to this question would have been "two."

20 posted on 04/04/2016 9:01:17 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Sometimes I feel like I've been tied to the whipping post.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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