Thread: Conservative challengers lose key Supreme Court voting rights case

Conservative challengers lose key Supreme Court voting rights case

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Updated 11:39 AM ET, Mon April 4, 2016 | Video Source: CNN

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court handed conservative challengers a loss Monday in a key voting rights case.

In a unanimous result, the court said a state can draw legislative districts based on total population. At issue in the case was the "one person, one vote" principle dating back to the 1960s, when the court held that state legislative districts must be drawn so they are equal in population.

But, until Monday, justices never specified whether that doctrine applied to the general population or to the voting population. All states currently draw lines based on general population, but two conservative plaintiffs from Texas argued their vote was being diluted in relation to other districts that had the same number of people but fewer voters.

The Obama administration and state of Texas opposed the lawsuit. Civil rights groups watched the case carefully, fearful that if the court were to rule with the plaintiffs, it could potentially shift power from urban areas -- districts that tend to include a higher percentage of individuals not eligible to vote such as non-citizens, released felons and children -- to rural areas that are more likely to favor Republicans.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion.

"The rule appellants urge has no mooring in the Equal Protection Clause. The Texas Senate map, we therefore conclude, complies with the requirements of the one-person, one-vote principle," Ginsburg wrote.

"Because history, precedent, and practice suffice to reveal the infirmity of appellants' claims, we need not and do not resolve whether, as Texas now argues, States may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population."

Edward Blum, the director of a conservative group called Project on Fair Representation, backed the challenge by Texas residents Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger. Blum's group was also behind a 2013 case that invalidated a central provision of the Voting Rights Act as well as a case this term seeking to strike down a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas.

Blum said Monday his group is "disappointed" in the ruling. "The issue of voter equality in the United States is not going to go away. Some Supreme Court cases grow in importance over time and Evenwel v. Abbott may likely be one of those cases," he said in a statement."

The plaintiffs argued that their vote was being diluted in relation to voters in other districts and that Texas must look primarily at the total number of eligible voters when it draws district lines.

"This appeal presents a fundamental question," William Consovoy, a lawyer for Evenwel, told the justices during oral arguments in December. "That question is whether the one person, one vote rule affords eligible voters any reasonable protection."

Civil rights groups feared that Latino communities in certain states with nonvoting residents, as well as children and others, would be sharply disadvantaged if the court were to side with Evenwel. "Drawing districts to equalize people is the only way to ensure that the communities where people live and work are fairly represented in the nation's legislatures," Michael Li, counsel for the Brennan Center's Democracy Program said after oral arguments.

Also supporting Texas was Nathaniel Persily of Stanford Law School, who said that if the court were to say that the Constitution requires states to use the voting population, it could unleash a series of questions regarding the reliability of voter lists and surveys. "A national database of eligible voters does not exist and will not exist in the foreseeable future," he said in an amicus brief.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/04/politi...g-rights-case/

And how does this all gerrymandering work? BY GOVERNMENT KEPT RECORDS OF PARTY AFFILIATION! And why do they keep such records? THE STATE PRIMARY ELECTION SYSTEM! And where do they get such records? BY ASKING FOR PARTY AFFILIATION FOR PURPOSES OF VOTER REGISTRATION!

If state government were prohibited from asking for party affiliation on voter registration forms and prohibited from keeping records of party affiliation on the voter registration rolls, this would all go away, right away.

IT IS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS WHAT YOUR PARTY AFFILIATION IS!

End gerrymandering. End the Two Party System. Make it a crime for any part of government to ask for and keep records of party affiliation.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

And how does this all gerrymandering work?
BY GOVERNMENT KEPT RECORDS OF PARTY AFFILIATION! And why do they keep such records? THE STATE PRIMARY ELECTION SYSTEM! And where do they get such records? BY ASKING FOR PARTY AFFILIATION FOR PURPOSES OF VOTER REGISTRATION!

If state government were prohibited from asking for party affiliation on voter registration forms and prohibited from keeping records of party affiliation on the voter registration rolls, this would all go away, right away.

IT IS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS WHAT YOUR PARTY AFFILIATION IS!

End gerrymandering. End the Two Party System. Make it a crime for any part of government to ask for and keep records of party affiliation.

No one has to give a party affiliation.

They can mark "Decline to state" or "No party preference."


No Party Preference Information

Voting in Presidential Primary Elections

Each political party has the option of allowing people who register to vote without stating a political party preference ("no party preference" voters - formerly known as "decline-to-state" voters) to vote in their presidential primary election.

A political party must notify the Secretary of State's office whether or not they will allow no party preference voters to vote in their presidential primary election 135 days before the election.

If a no party preference voter wishes to vote in the presidential primary election of a political party who has notified the Secretary of State that they will allow no party preference voters to vote in their party's primary, a no party preference voter would simply ask their county elections office or ask a poll worker at their polling place for a ballot for that political party. A voter may not request more than one party's ballot.

If a no party preference voter does not request such a ballot, they will be given a nonpartisan ballot, containing only the names of candidates for voter-nominated offices and local nonpartisan offices and measures to be voted upon at that presidential primary election.

For the June 7, 2016, Presidential Primary Election the following parties notified the Secretary of State that they will allow No Party Preference voters to request their party’s presidential ballot:

• American Independent Party
  
• Democratic Party
  
• Libertarian Party

History Behind California's Primary Election System

Closed Primary System

A "closed" primary system governed California's primary elections until 1996. In a closed primary, only persons who are registered members of a political party may vote the ballot of that political party.

Open Primary System

The provisions of the "closed" primary system were amended by the adoption of Proposition 198, an initiative statute approved by the voters at the March 26, 1996, Primary Election. Proposition 198 changed the closed primary system to what is known as a "blanket" or "open" primary, in which all registered voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of political affiliation and without a declaration of political faith or allegiance. On June 26, 2000, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in California Democratic Party, et. al. v. Jones, stating that California's "open" primary system, established by Proposition 198, was unconstitutional because it violated a political party's First Amendment right of association. Therefore, the Supreme Court overturned Proposition 198.

Modified Closed Primary System for Presidential Elections

California's current "modified" closed primary system for Presidential elections was chaptered on September 29, 2000 and took effect on January 1, 2001. Senate Bill 28 (Ch. 898, Stats. 2000) implemented a "modified" closed primary system that permitted voters who had declined to provide a political party preference (formerly known as "decline to state" voters) to participate in a primary election if authorized by an individual party's rules and duly noticed by the Secretary of State.

Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act and Voter-Nominated Offices

The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act, which took effect January 1, 2011, requires that all candidates for a voter-nominated office be listed on the same ballot. Previously known as partisan offices, voter-nominated offices are state legislative offices, U.S. congressional offices, and state constitutional offices. Only the two candidates receiving the most votes—regardless of party preference—move on to the general election regardless of vote totals.

Write-in candidates for voter-nominated offices can only run in the primary election. However, a write-in candidate can only move on to the general election if the candidate is one of the top two vote-getters in the primary election.

Additionally, there is no independent nomination process for a general election. California's new open primary system does not apply to candidates running for U.S. President, county central committee, or local offices.

Party-Nominated/Partisan Offices
Under the California Constitution, political parties may formally nominate candidates for party-nominated/partisan offices at the primary election. A candidate so nominated will then represent that party as its official candidate for the office in question at the ensuing general election and the ballot will reflect an official designation to that effect. The top vote getter for each party at the primary election is entitled to participate in the general election. Parties also elect officers of official party committees at a partisan primary.

No voter may vote in the primary election of any political party other than the party he or she has disclosed a preference for upon registering to vote. However, a political party may authorize a person who has declined to disclose a party preference to vote in that party's primary election.

Voter-Nominated Offices
Under the California constitution, political parties are not entitled to formally nominate candidates for voter-nominated offices at the primary election. A candidate nominated for a voter-nominated office at the primary election is the nominee of the people and not the official nominee of any party at the following general election. A candidate for nomination or election to a voter-nominated office shall have his or her party preference, or lack of party preference, reflected on the primary and general election ballot, but the party preference designation is selected solely by the candidate and is shown for the information of the voters only. It does not constitute or imply an endorsement of the candidate by the party designated, or affiliation between the party and candidate, and no candidate nominated by the qualified voters for any voter-nominated office shall be deemed to be the officially nominated candidate of any political party. The parties may list the candidates for voter-nominated offices who have received the official endorsement of the party in the sample ballot.

All voters may vote for any candidate for a voter-nominated office, provided they meet the other qualifications required to vote for that office. The top two votegetters at the primary election advance to the general election for the voter-nominated office, even if both candidates have specified the same party preference designation.

No party is entitled to have a candidate with its party preference designation participate in the general election unless such candidate is one of the two highest vote getters at the primary election.

Nonpartisan Offices
Under the California Constitution, political parties are not entitled to nominate candidates for nonpartisan offices at the primary election, and a candidate nominated for a nonpartisan office at the primary election is not the official nominee of any party for the office in question at the ensuing general election. A candidate for nomination or election to a nonpartisan office may not designate his or her party preference, or lack of party preference, on the primary and general election ballot. The top two vote getters at the primary election advance to the general election for the nonpartisan office.

History of Political Parties That Have Adopted Party Rules Regarding No Party Preference Voters

Supreme Court rules in redistricting case: Illegal immigrants, other non-citizens can be counted

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Monday, April 4, 2016

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.

“As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote,” she wrote. “Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates — children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public-education system — and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies.”

Texas residents had challenged the way districts were drawn in their state, saying that because they ended up in districts with more eligible voters, their vote counted less than someone in another district.

Because of illegal immigrants, other non-citizens and children under 18 years of age, state legislative districts in Texas can vary by as much as 40 percent.

The process of dividing up districts is known as apportionment.

At the federal level, congressional districts have been drawn based on total population under the strictures of the Fourteenth Amendment.

All 50 states have followed the same rules, though the Constitution wasn’t explicit on the matter.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...apportionment/

All the more reason to deport them all on the earliest possible date, families intact, no child left behind. The court ruled on this with the same thinking as it ruled on the Plyer vs Doe case that requires school districts to pay for the education of illegal aliens.

If you don't want them in your schools, get them out of the country.

If you don't want them in your Census, get them out of the country.

The US Supreme Court's position is very simple, if you don't want them in your schools, in your hospitals, in your work places, in your Census .... just deport them out of the United States.

That is the law, that is the option. The US Supreme Court is not going to reinterpret the US Constitution to allow for the infiltration of tens of millions of illegal aliens to create a second class subset of people in this country like you have in India. Our courts will never do that because the Constitution forbids it.

So man up, woman up, stop wanting your cake and eat it too and get these people the hell out of here.

Donald Trump will get them out of here. So if you really want to protect our country, protect our schools, our hospitals, our citizens, our elections, our Congressional districts, our budget, our lives, you'll vote for Donald Trump and he'll deport every single illegal alien in the country in 2 years or less. Believe it.