Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Eugene

(61,935 posts)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:20 AM Apr 2016

Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge in 'one person, one vote' case

Source: Reuters

The Supreme Court on Monday endorsed the way Texas draws its legislative districts based on total population and not just eligible voters - the same method used by all 50 states - rejecting a conservative challenge in a case focusing on the legal principle of "one person, one vote."

The eight-justice court unanimously rebuffed the challenge spearheaded by a conservative legal activist that could have shifted influence in state legislative races away from urban areas that tend to be racially diverse and favor Democrats to rural ones predominantly with white voters who often back Republicans.

Two of the court's conservatives, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, concurred only in the judgment and did sign on to the opinion authored by liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The court is one justice short following the Feb. 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, but the unanimous vote suggested his presence would not have substantially affected the outcome.

The court said Texas' method of drawing districts does not violate the long-established legal principle of "one person, one vote" endorsed by the Supreme Court in the 1960s during the era of the U.S. civil rights movement.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-voters-idUSKCN0X11GS



World | Mon Apr 4, 2016 10:49am EDT
WASHINGTON | BY LAWRENCE HURLEY

EDIT: Updated story
Original Reuters story: U.S. top court rejects conservative challenge in 'one person, one vote' case
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

rurallib

(62,433 posts)
3. that is quite a surprise
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:34 AM
Apr 2016

that was going to be the next republican arrow in the disenfranchisement of americans.

Democat

(11,617 posts)
2. Scalia probably would have written the dissent
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:31 AM
Apr 2016

This was a right wing dream to further disenfranchise non-Republican voters.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
4. TX GOP is hurting and .,,, running out of things
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:35 AM
Apr 2016

to try and turn the Tide,,,,, Texas is slowly turning Blue and I lov it!

houston16revival

(953 posts)
5. 8-0
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:36 AM
Apr 2016

Scalia would have made it at least 6-3 if not 5-4

Justice Alito is showing slight signs of being more common sense

or does he just join the majority in decisions that have no hope of
ever flipping

I'm not a Court watcher

They say age changes people, justices as well

We can hope

strategery blunder

(4,225 posts)
12. Events can change the justices' perspective, too.
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:41 PM
Apr 2016

I bet that the Arizona primary election fiasco left egg on the faces of those who had previously voted to weaken the Voting Rights Act. Especially since it came so soon after that ideologically-split decision.

Raster

(20,998 posts)
14. Scalia was an evil motherfucker, whose only purpose on the SCOTUS was to further...
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 10:49 PM
Apr 2016

...the reich-wing agenda.

ROT. IN. HELL. FAT. TONY.

 

think

(11,641 posts)
7. From the LA Times: Supreme Court upholds method for setting voting districts
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:50 AM
Apr 2016
Supreme Court upholds method for setting voting districts

By David G. Savage - April 4 2016

A conservative effort to shift political power away from fast-growing communities of immigrants fizzled Monday when the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the current widely-used method of counting all persons when drawing up election districts.

The justices ruled that creating voting districts “on the basis of the total population” is constitutional and need not change.

“History, our decisions and settled practice in all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions point in the same direction,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The outcome preserves the status quo and is likely to be welcomed by Democrats and immigrants-rights advocates.

Read more:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-voting-districts-20160404-story.html

Shrike47

(6,913 posts)
10. This is a truly wonderful outcome. The Rs keep trying to steal power. One door shut.
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:12 AM
Apr 2016

Somewhere in the country, one of them is proposing that voting rights be tied to property or income, or coming up with a new way to disenfranchise Dems I can't yet imagine. They know they won't win the war of ideas so they try to change the battle.

24601

(3,962 posts)
13. This court just ratified another way. Pack a rural district with a prison complex and the
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 07:50 PM
Apr 2016

population goes up while eligible voters do not.

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
11. i dont think this is a terribly consequential ruling
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:49 AM
Apr 2016

Maybe a state gets an extra house seat...maybe. but that doesn't mean it'll be a Dem seat, since whatever body that draws the districts still has wide latitude to do so.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court rejects con...