Have you heard of the “one person, one vote” controversy? The very fact that this is considered controversial should tell you all you need to know about the political leanings on the Left
Supreme Court redistricting case could reduce Latinos’ political clout
For 50 years the “one person, one vote†principle has been used to divvy up political power by counting all people in states and putting them into electoral districts of roughly equal size.
But the mathematics of power may be about to change in a way that could shift political clout away from fast-growing Latino communities in states such as California, Texas and Florida and move it to the suburbs and rural areas.
The problem here is that many of these people are not eligible to vote, because they are not U.S. citizens, either here legally or illegally. They should have zero political clout, at least in terms of voting.
The Supreme Court surprised election-law experts Tuesday and said it would hear arguments this fall about whether voting districts should continue to be drawn by using census population data, which include noncitizen immigrants who are in the United States both legally and illegally, or whether the system should be changed to count only citizens who are eligible to vote, as conservative challengers are seeking.
Oh, good, the LAT noticed that part about noncitizen voting.
Districts in the Legislature are required to have virtually the same population. But in some districts, a large share of residents are noncitizens. That’s particularly true in parts of Los Angeles and the Central Valley that have large immigrant populations. The number of citizens can be as much as 40% higher in some districts than in others.
Here’s a simple solution: get rid of your illegals. Send them back where they belong.
But Assemblyman Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville), chairman of the Latino Legislative Caucus, said the issue was a question of fairness.
“Many of us who represent a large number of noncitizen immigrants assume a responsibility to represent everyone within our districts, regardless of their citizenship status,†he said in an email. “These individuals deserve to have representatives that will also champion their concerns too.â€
No, they don’t. Your American citizen individuals deserve 100% of that representation.
How such a switch might affect the partisan balance within the state is harder to forecast, in part because much depends on how new district lines might be drawn. Currently, Democrats represent many of the areas that would be relative losers, but also many of the affluent districts that would gain clout.
And there is the actual issue: Democrats couldn’t care less about the illegals, they care about the political power.
In the Central Valley of CA which is heavily GOP congressional districts get to include in their census this DOES include people who are here without documents and also those whose documents are out of status.
Voting districts in some states, such as NC, have been heavily gerrymandered by GOP legislators. In fact Teach YOUR adopted state has THE most gerrymandered districts in the whole USA
According to the total amount of votes cast Dems should have won 7 seats in NC but because of gerrymandering they only got about half that amount, 4
When/if Hillary is elected and gets some Supreme Court appointments the Supremes may put an end to geryymandering
Take a look at NC 12th district if you want to see what can be done to put the fix in elections by drawing crazy districts
and what about corporations? aren’t they also entitled to representation also ?
Good one, John. Because the left never gerrymanders, it just the GOP. Due back on planet earth now.
In Moonbeam’s People’s Socialist Welfare Republik Of Californijuanastan it’s all about the wetbacks.
Monday morning links
Boyhood Under Attack: Why Boys Can’t Just Be Boys Anymore(Bill Whittle video) Don’t Ban Trans Fats The guaranteed failure of Bill de Blasio’s plan to help failing schools Average of 102 Climate Models Versus Reality Black Workers Can No Longe