The Supreme Court missed one - badly

[BackInTex]

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

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.

If a decision or position is correct, it is correct in the extreme. What this ruling will allow is that one person, with one vote, may elect their own US Representative.

[SpacemanSpiff]

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

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.

If a decision or position is correct, it is correct in the extreme. What this ruling will allow is that one person, with one vote, may elect their own US Representative.

I'm still waiting for The Supremes to extend the Citizens United case to extend voting rights to corporations, and for Delaware to have 410 members of the House of Representatives.

[silverscreenselect]

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

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.

If a decision or position is correct, it is correct in the extreme. What this ruling will allow is that one person, with one vote, may elect their own US Representative.

So you're saying that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

It doesn't say anything about the number of eligible voters.

[BackInTex]

So you're saying that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

It doesn't say anything about the number of eligible voters.

But this does (14th Amendment, Section 2)

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

[Appa23]

So you're saying that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

It doesn't say anything about the number of eligible voters.

But this does (14th Amendment, Section 2)

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

That section says that your state gets fewer Reps if there is denial or abridgement of voting, not that Reps are determined by how many eligible voters there are. You might want to consider why that language was inserted into a provision that changed the number of persons being used to determine apportionment from "free persons" to persons and dropped "3/5ths of all other persons".

[mrkelley23]

BiT, I know this is a hot button issue for you, but it seems like the first sentence in your own citation backs up the majority opinion of the Court. Representatives represent everybody, but they are only elected by eligible voters. Am I missing something?

[BackInTex]

That section says that your state gets fewer Reps if there is denial or abridgement of voting, not that Reps are determined by how many eligible voters there are. You might want to consider why that language was inserted into a provision that changed the number of persons being used to determine apportionment from "free persons" to persons and dropped "3/5ths of all other persons".

100,000 people
99,999 non-citizen immigrants
1 citizen eligible to vote

Count = 100,000 (respective number?)
however, 99,999 of them are denied voting rights (or abridgement if you so desire) not through rebellion or other crime

So basis of representation is reduced by 99,999/100,000, so the end count is 1. The only adjustment would be for those included in the 100,00 not of voting age.

The calculation is pretty clear.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

[Bob78164]

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

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.

If a decision or position is correct, it is correct in the extreme. What this ruling will allow is that one person, with one vote, may elect their own US Representative.

That would be possible anyway. Suppose only 1 eligible voter troubles herself to vote. --Bob

[BackInTex]

That would be possible anyway. Suppose only 1 eligible voter troubles herself to vote. --Bob

Sure, but that would mean she was proxied the votes of those choosing not to. In essence, they all voted, giving her their votes.

[silverscreenselect]

Of course, no one has answered one big question. How do you determine just how many illegal immigrants are living in a state? From the U.S. Census website:

Does the Census Bureau collect data on the legal status of the foreign born? back to top
No. However, the American Community Survey and Current Population Survey each include a question on citizenship status which can be used to divide the foreign-born population into naturalized citizens and noncitizens.


Do the data on the foreign born collected by the Census Bureau include unauthorized immigrants? back to top
Yes. The U.S. Census Bureau collects data from all foreign born who participate in its censuses and surveys, regardless of legal status. Thus, unauthorized migrants are implicitly included in Census Bureau estimates of the total foreign-born population, although it is not possible to tabulate separate estimates of unauthorized migrants.

https://www.census.gov/population/forei ... t/faq.html

And, for that matter, should we exclude people under 18 and legal aliens from the totals as well? Neither of those groups are eligible to vote either.

And if you exclude illegal immigrants, you'd also have to readjust the total number of representatives (and electoral votes) a state has based on those results as well. So, Texas would probably lose a few Congressional districts as a result.

[TheCalvinator24]

I agree with the Court's analysis.

Now, I'm curious if anyone else sees a huge potential unintended consequence.

HINT: It involves a different, but somewhat related issue regarding apportionment.