Home | About | Donate

Supreme Court Takes Up 'Fundamental Issue of Democracy' in Voting Case


#1

Supreme Court Takes Up 'Fundamental Issue of Democracy' in Voting Case

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a case on redistricting that could have a profound impact on voting and representation nationwide, as it considered the dynamics of the "one person, one vote" principle.

It's a case that is poised to upend the U.S. voting process and "make millions of people who live in our communities invisible in our democracy."


#2

The historical irony is that they wanted to count "the other" a century and a half ago

For the same reason


#3

If this goes the way of the right wingers, then let the revolution begin. We can contact the French and ask to borrow their guillotine, giving them the Statue of Liberty as collateral until such time as we can return it. If we do return it, we will have won and can bear Liberty back to New York Harbor with pride. If not then we will know the majority in this country chose to follow Trump, and Republicans into the darkest might.


#4

I really don't think we want the anarchy of the French revolution. That thing was horrible.
This SC is changing all sorts of settled law that I recall them "promising they wouldn't.
But with the TPP in the offing, I don't know how much "democracy is left in this country.
Frankly, the Latinos I know of in my state probably wouldn't even notice the difference they're so disegaged. Why? I couldn't say


#5

I agree; a French type of revolution would be unthinkable - almost. But every time I turn on the TV and hear that maniac Trump take another step toward that darkest night, his fanatical followers obediently in tow - in other words I am running out of options. I have been a volunteer mediator for twenty years. I am a peacemaker by nature. The whole concept of a revolution is alien to me, and it did not make me feel good, satisfied when I wrote the words above. It sickened me, seeming a betrayal of what I truly believe in.

Back to my principles: I'll call out people peacefully, as I try to do now. I'll probably pick on one of Trump's favored gun slingers and end up dead. Oh well, every woman's life must come to an end. So be it.


#7

That's what it is beginning to feel like.


#8

Give more power to older, white voters? Gosh, I can't imagine how the SCOTUS will vote.


#9

Does my Congresswoman represent only me, and not my non-eligible-voter greatgrandchildren and taxpaying neighbors, etc.? Is not the built-in malapportionment of two senators from each state irrespective of either total or eligible-voter population; and that resulting from race-based gerrymanders and voter suppression measures, enough for these democracy-destroyers?


#10

I think you mis-spelled "chaos". Anarchy simply means "no ruler", not no orderliness.


#11

Has anyone thought about the lack of representation inherent in having FPTP elections in districts where the split is not quite 50/50?

Supposing every district were laid out such that the GOP had 52% of the voters and the Dems had 48%. Would Dem voters be represented at all?

Supposing it were the other way: the Dems have the 52%. Would Dem voters be represented even then?


#12

Semi-OT: Does anyone know whether Susan is okay? She hasn't posted since the 25th, more than 2 weeks. That's unlike her.


#13

You will find people on 'right-wing' sites that will agree with the statement, though differ on the examples of it.
* They will complain that twice the SCOTUS has twisted the Constitution into pretzels rather than toss out the ACA Obamacare...
* They will complain that the SCOTUS reached into some dark place to find a 'right' to same-sex marriage. Justice Scalia warned, correctly, that it would lead to discrimination/non-discrimination vs. religious freedom fights that we are now seeing with bakers, photographers and others.


#14

This can be considered an opportunity...
.
This harkens back to one of the debates back in 1787. The southern states wanted everyone counted. The northern 'free' states objected, noting that slaves could not vote and that the planters, in effect, wanted to usurp the voting power of the slaves. Deadlock, which was resolved by 'splitting the difference', the infamous 3/5th of a person rule that limited just how much planters could steal the voting power of the slaves.
-- (A side note btw. The Constitution still does not count 'Indians not taxed'. This hasn't been enforced for decades.)
.
So this can be considered an opportunity. Lib-progs on this forum could start agitating for resident voting rights, that every adult has a right to vote whether they are a law-abiding citizen, a felon, or a not-citizen.