d*2
发帖数: 2053 | 1 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/04/supreme-
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to change the way state and
municipal voting districts are drawn, denying an effort by conservatives
that could have increased the number of rural, mostly white districts at the
expense of urban, largely Hispanic ones.
The "one person, one vote" case was among the most consequential of the high
court's term, and once again the court's liberal wing won out. The ruling
left intact Texas' method — followed by all states — of drawing districts
with roughly equal numbers of residents.
Challengers had argued only eligible voters should be counted, a method that
would have allowed states to ignore non-citizens and others who do not vote
, including children. In most cases, that would have helped Republican
candidates and hurt Democrats.
If the court had ruled that districts should be based on eligible voters
rather than total population, states with large numbers of non-citizens
would have seen the biggest change — Texas, California, New York, New
Jersey, Arizona and Nevada among them. Cities such as Chicago and Miami also
would be affected.
Six justices signed on to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's decision, and
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — the most conservative members
of the court — concurred in the judgment.
"Total-population apportionment meets the equal protection demand, by
rendering each representative alert to the interests and constituent-service
requests of all who dwell in the representative's district," Ginsburg said.
ecause challengers had sought to force a change to counting only eligible
voters, the court did not rule on a lesser possibility — that states merely
be allowed to switch to voters. But no states currently do so, partly
because of the difficulty in counting voters rather than all people.
Thomas and Alito agreed that Texas cannot be forced to switch to using only
eligible voters in drawing districts, but they said the Constitution does
not require that approach.
"The choice is best left for the people of the states to decide for
themselves how they should apportion their legislature," Thomas wrote.
"Whether a state is permitted to use some measure other than total
population is an important and sensitive question that we can consider if
and when we have before us a state districting plan that, unlike the current
Texas plan, uses something other than total population as the basis for
equalizing the size of districts," Alito wrote.
During oral argument in December, a majority of justices appeared to agree
that the standard by which election districts are drawn is imperfect. But
they couldn't come up with a better way.
Debating a case that threatened to upend the political balance in the nation
from New York to California, the more conservative justices indicated they
were open at least to incorporating voter population into the mix. The more
liberal justices opposed going to eligible voters, which would render non-
citizens invisible when drawing districts — along with children, prisoners,
some ex-felons and some people with intellectual disabilities.
Those justices warned that incorporating voter population likely would
jeopardize other goals, such as drawing compact districts and respecting
municipal boundaries. They also noted that congressional seats already must
be apportioned based on population, and that survey data on eligible voters
is less reliable.
Perhaps most important, they said, is the need to keep districts relatively
equal in terms of population so that all residents have the same access to
their elected officials. "There is a voting interest," Justice Sonia
Sotomayor acknowledged when the case was debated. "But there is also a
representation interest."
The challengers' argument boiled down to this: Texas' population-based
system puts more voters in districts with fewer non-citizens and others who
cannot vote, thereby diluting the weight of their votes. In heavily Hispanic
districts or others with large numbers of non-voters, the remaining
residents' votes carry greater weight.
The equal protection clause of the Constitution is supposed to guarantee
each person the same political power. The problem is that the Supreme Court
has never decided who should be counted — all people, or just voters.
The case pitted scores of civil rights organizations, who wanted to protect
the interests of minorities, against a lesser number of conservative and
libertarian groups who wanted the metric changed so that voting comes before
representation.
It was the brainchild of Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair
Representation, which has filed several Supreme Court challenges to racial
and ethnic preferences in voting and higher education.
Blum brought the challenge to the University of Texas affirmative action
plan that also came before the justices in December, as well as a challenge
to the Voting Rights Act that resulted in the court's 2013 decision striking
down the requirement that mostly Southern states and municipalities get
federal approval for any changes in voting practices. | z****z
发帖数: 2054 | 2 The voting districts should be drawn based solely on the population of tax
payers.
和平, 奋斗, 救美国.
the
high
districts
that
【在 d*2 的大作中提到】
: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/04/supreme-
: WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to change the way state and
: municipal voting districts are drawn, denying an effort by conservatives
: that could have increased the number of rural, mostly white districts at the
: expense of urban, largely Hispanic ones.
: The "one person, one vote" case was among the most consequential of the high
: court's term, and once again the court's liberal wing won out. The ruling
: left intact Texas' method — followed by all states — of drawing districts
: with roughly equal numbers of residents.
: Challengers had argued only eligible voters should be counted, a method that
| f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 3 这个案子的焦点就是，划分选区，应该基于所有人口，还是应该基于投票人口。
八名法官都同意选区划分可以基于总人口，但两大保守派alito和托马斯，不同意其他
法官的理由。 | f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 4 补充一点，保守派大法官托马斯的观点，依然是小政府，依然深得极右老王的心。他的
意思是，怎么分选区，各州自决。报道原文如下。
Justice Thomas used his lengthy opinion to chastise the majority for even
trying to figure out what “one person, one vote” should mean as a
constitutional matter; in his view, the Court should leave such issues to
the states to decide. Under the Constitution, he wrote, a state “
can use total population, eligible voters, or any other nondiscriminatory
voter base.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/opinion-analysis-leaving-a-co |
|
