The Supreme court ruled Monday that a state can draw legislative districts based on total population, bringing back into light the case of one person, one vote from the 1960s. Until Monday, that doctrine wasn’t specified to be applied to the general population or the voting population.
Looking at this ruling from the perspective of both major political views, if the court ruled that districts be drawn by voting population then more voting power would be shifted to rural areas which are widely conservative in contrast to urban centers with higher populations which tend to vote liberally. In the end, the unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court seems to benefit the Democrats.
We went with Dick Morris’ title because it just brings out what the Democrats are up to. They want to get more representatives by counting illegals as voters. Then they will push to get illegals the vote. Hillary has already come out strongly behind granting illegals driving licences. Her next move, of course, will be to register all those with drivers licenses. After all husband Bill authored the Motor Voter Law.
The point is that Democrats like to steal elections. They will use any means to win and legality is not an issue. Dead voters, voters voting multiple times, illegal voters, “fixing” voting machines, destroying ballots, restricting the overseas military vote, OPPOSING VOTER ID LAWS, you name it Democrats will do it to win.
If Justice Antonin Scalia was still alive and voted on this case it would have been a 5-4 decision for Constitutionalists instead of a 4-4 tie. REMEMBER THAT WHEN YOU VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ARE IMPORTANT.
The Supreme Court decision in Evenwel v. Abbott, harkens back to how our original Constitution enshrined slavery in power until the Civil War.
The Evenwel decision holds that states may apportion districts — and presumably Congress can apportion Congressional representation — based on total population rather than based on those actually eligible to vote. So now illegal immigrants, who cannot vote, are counted equally with voters in allocating legislative representation.
There is a terrible analogy between the Evenwel decision and the infamous three-fifths rule that was adopted to determine slave representation in the House of Representatives.
At the original Constitutional Convention, the northern and southern states wrangled over how to count slaves — who could not vote — in allocating congressional districts to the states. The South wanted its voting power enhanced so slave states could come closer to a majority in the House of Representatives and have more electoral votes in choosing a president (electoral votes are allocated by adding the number of senators and congressmen from each state).
The northern states relented and agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person in apportioning legislative seats. The South and the slave interest benefited enormously from the compromise.
So, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Evenwel, illegal immigrants are to be the modern equivalent of slaves in proportioning representation in Congress. Like slaves, these illegal immigrants cannot vote. But they are now to be counted in determining how many seats in Congress each state gets. These phantom voters have no more right to influence the composition of our Congress than the slaves did — unless and until they can vote.
As Gary Willis explains in his book Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power (2003), the distortions caused by the three-fifths rule permitted the slave power to remain in ascendency. The Southern slave states had 47 House members in 1793 — under the three-fifths rule — while they should have had only 33. By 1812, they had 76 but should have been entitled to only 59. By 1833, they had 98 as opposed to the 73 they should have had.
Willis calls Jefferson the “Negro President” because it was the extra electoral votes that came from the three-fifths rule that let Jefferson eek past President John Adams in the electoral college in the election of 1800. In that contest, Jefferson won with 73 electoral votes to Adams’ 65. But had the Electoral College votes only reflected vote eligible citizens, and excluded the three-fifths rule, Adams would have won.
This odious comparison illustrates the injustice of using illegal immigrants to apportion power but not giving them a voice in how it is used. Either make them citizens and count their votes or leave them out of apportionment.