Supreme Court upholds ‘one person, one vote’

by Richard Wolf  |  published on April 4, 2016

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 unanimous ruling left intact Texas’ method — followed by nearly all states — of counting all residents when drawing state and local voting districts.

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. More people would be packed into diverse districts, thereby creating more districts dominated by whites.

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 have been affected.

  • corey

    should be one citizen, one vote. I think that’s pretty much the way it was intended. Otherwise, why even have a sovereign nation? This is BS progressive activism.

  • 45j

    Areas are flooded with criminal, minorities many illegal but they get more benefits than white tax payers!! wow

  • Jon Ockunzzi

    This travesty is clearly NOT what the framers of the Constitution had in mind with regards to “one person, one vote”. Clarence Thomas is the ONLY Justice who voiced what our founding fathers intended in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Once again the liberal Democrats have stomped on the Constitution.

    • ipsd48

      Constitution says nothing about ‘one person, one vote’. They left issues of eligebility up to the states. It was only because many southern states had so blatantly violated the SPIRIT of voting that the USSC stepped in in the 1960s.

      • Jon Ockunzzi

        That’s what I meant. Not what they wrote but their “intent” or “spirit” as you say. Like the First Amendment freedom of speech does NOT mean you can LIE under oath. That is NOT the intent.

  • MidnightDStroyer

    Actually, unless the Supreme Court actually MEANS “one US Citizen, one Federal vote,” then they are WRONG in the face of Constitutional Law. People who have officially expatriated their US Citizenship are NOT eligible to vote in Federal elections, even if they still retain their State Citizenship by still living there.

    Yes, that does mean that there are TWO valid levels of Citizenship while living in these United States; indeed, in accordance with the 10th Amendment, State level Citizenship retains MORE sovereign powers than was has been granted to the United States.

    That also means that illegal immigrants still are NOT eligible to vote on the Federal ballot; they must first become Naturalized citizens in accordance with the Law before they can vote on the Federal level.

    • mytrbilbo

      and yet all illegal aliens in California are eligible… nay…required!! to have a drivers license… to drive….AND the idiot Stat Governor Brown REQUIRES the DMV to register to VOTE…locally, State AND FEDERAL votes.
      Of course that is illegal at the Federal level YET in California this moron wants illegals to vote in the upcoming elections.
      As it stands there is NOW a Federal action suggesting they may ask California to VALIDATE ALL CITIZEN VOTES BY NAME (really? when the libtards here will not even require an ID to vote??)….OR invalidate ALL Californians votes and delegates due to ordered undefined Fraud in voting in VERY precinct.
      There are today over 3 MILLION licensed registered illegal aliens….. and up to 3 million MORE unregistered.
      This Moron Governor has created the worst case of voter fraud in US History with his libtard love for ILLEGALS in California…… AND may have INVALIDATED Californians from being able to vote and be counted in a Presidential election.
      well done libtard.

  • Original Anna

    The Supreme Court needs to be non-existant, it has too much power and is making too many laws that the Congress should be responsible for. Voting is a priviledge as a citizen of the U.S. not a citizen of Mexico or a citizen of the Middle East countries or a citizen of any other country. Why is it that the Supreme Court can not understand something that is so clear. It was not meant to be in political control of this country, only the voting citizens of this country were meant to be in control of this country. That is why we have a voting system that sends those who have been voted in as legislatures to Congress. Members of a committee of people not voted to the committee by voting citizens is not a voting system but a political system. The Supreme Court was never invented to have such power, it has ended up with this power through the years by slowly convincing Congressional members to relinquish their power to the Supreme Court. Time to kill this overreaching strangle hold over the citizens of the U.S.

    • ipsd48

      No Anna. Voting is a RESPONSIBILITY that comes with citizenship.
      Too many act like it’s a privlege.

      • Original Anna

        ipsd48: I grew up during the commie years as Russia expanded and ruled the world with communism. As a result, our teachers taught us that voting was as a U.S. citizen a priviledge and a responsibility in a free nation where we could choose to vote or not to vote unlike under communism you had to show up and vote despite the fact all you could choose from was all communist politicians. Unfortunately, through the years citizens in the U.S. don’t think or feel that voting is a responsibility nor a priviledge. Stalin is jumping out of his grave to admire the citizens of this country voting for and admiring socialists or as they were called in the olden days communists. He was right, give me the children and I will have in one generation a bunch of loyal communists.

  • Charlie

    Thought that if a human entered a nation illegally that makes said human a criminal. If a human enters many nations illegally said human does not get welfare , free medical care , drivers license , government jobs nope said human goes to prison . Political correctness has been proving to be more of a political failure . If a human is not a citizen and is known to be an illegal aka criminal then the LEOs should arrest said human. Counting illegals is like counting all of the citizens of neighboring nations sovereign nation gone .

  • Carolyn

    Children cannot vote as well as illegals and other non-citizens such as those on work visas cannot vote, so the number of delegates should not be based on the count of those people. The politicians are elected by legal, adult registered voters and that’s how the number of delegates should be based on. it’s just another way for the Liberals to screw the taxpayers of this country.

    • voncile fullwood

      If they can come here by Obama say so and give free housing free visa free everything while our soldiers live on the streets with no place go then they can vote on Obama’s say so because he want Hillary in to take over his legacy and id it means illegals voting then they will vote they voted..he does what he wants to do for Obama in the first and second term

  • Patrick Driscoll

    Just assume the most illogical approach and you have the left.

    • Murph68

      It’s perfectly logical if you’re on the left. Their only concern is keeping power and sadly, the SC has just made that easier for them at the expense of all true Americans.

  • gypsy314

    American citizen ends up with short end of the stick at the expense of American voter. Illegal aliens and there kids should not be in the picture. Our judges are not Americans any longer .

    • daveveselenak

      REVOLUTION will be the SOLUTION to the TYRANNY at hand – like it or not that is the truth so help me God!

  • joleenworden

    And the obvious question should be why are we concerned with “representing” illegal criminal trespassers who are NOT citizens of our country, but are breaking our laws? What we should be doing while “counting” them is getting them deported immediately. Trump is right; immigrants are good, but NOT illegal ones.

  • Gnowark

    So instead of “one voter, one vote,” SCOTUS is saying “one person, one vote for districting” because it might be too difficult to just count voters. I can understand the “been like that for years” argument, but I thought we were trying to make things better. Doesn’t this also promote the non-registered, perhaps non-living, voter? I guess I’ll have to read, and decide for myself, what it ‘means.’

    • I Seigel

      No, it doesn’t promote the “non-living” voter. It promotes people who don’t vote – like children. Other adults, like people who don’t want to serve on a jury and so don’t register to vote, are also counted in this ruling. It protects all residents of a district or a state. Illegal workers pay taxes, too, you know. They can’t vote, but they DO pay into the system.
      And it wasn’t just the liberal wing of the Supreme Court that decided this. The decision was unanimous.
      As to your “non-living” comment – it’s up to county registrars to keep their records straight. People who have died should be recorded as such.

      • Sharo

        You’re right about the responsibility of the county registrars to keep records straight, I Seigel, unfortunately that hasn’t been happening for quite a while all over the country. So, it’s been reported from several sources that the fraud is still continuing and I don’t know if it’s intentional or just laziness. Someone needs to do something about these inequities.

        • I Seigel

          Yes, it’s been reported from several sources. Do these several sources say how bad the problem really is? Are we talking about tens of people? Hundreds? Certainly not enough to change the election of a Congressman, much less a Senator or President. Maybe a city councilman or the county tax assessor. And certainly not enough to warrant the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and drastic changes to the voter laws, that are being spent and made to fight a problem that is way over-hyped. For every “dead” person who votes, or for every person who sneaks across a county line and votes twice (less than 1000, across the entire country, and for what real purpose?), how many tens of thousands, if not more, are being prevented from voting by shortening the voting hours, eliminating precinct voting locations, eliminating voting officials, or requiring multiple forms of ID?? Who benefits from those long lines that people wait in hours for? It’s seniors and others who don’t work and who have plenty of time to stand in lines, like poor people. And what party do those people normally support? Take a guess.

          • Starley

            Actually, it matters. Representation in delegates and in congress are dependent on census count. So areas with many illegal aliens would have increased population and favorably biased in the count.

          • I Seigel

            Maybe you should reconsider the problem. You think that mistakenly counting illegal aliens tips the count in favor of Democrats. Maybe the bigger problem are the Republicans, and their refusal to reach out to minorities. What happened to the Reagan “big tent”? What happened to the post-Romney reports that the party needed to be more inclusive, in order to win national elections? Do you see any of that happening?

            Why are Republicans so anti-union? The ONLY reason, it seems, is that unions seem to be more liberal-leaning. So it’s really all about votes and money, isn’t it. After all, unions, by definition, are a counter-balance to corporate greed. And who’s supporting corporate greed? Why, big business, the US Chamber of Commerce, and all the super-rich SuperPACS run by the wealthy, conservative 1%.

            The best way to fight illegal workers and promote jobs in America, by Americans, is to support unions and a fair union wage and worker protections!!

            It’s so obvious, it’s pathetic. And yet, we’re all being led around like sheep, blaming the illegals, when it’s the rich and powerful who have created and profited from them!!

          • Starley

            1. Republicans are not anti immigrant. They are against illegal immigration and protection of borders. Bias against Hispanics is a farce as they represent 40% of legal immigrants, disproportionately high compared to other groups. To take even more illegally is simply irrational. 13% or 1 in 8 persons in this country were born elsewhere. 1 in 4 if you include 1st generation. To say our immigration policy is unjust is the height of ignorance.

            2. Unions are as much corporations as big business. The problem is when either are involved in government to the point they cannot be separated. Neither unions nor corporations should be so influential as to be making laws and part of government. When corporations such as unions and big business become more influential than the people we all lose.

            3. As far as liberal, you are free to run you lives as you see fit. And I should be free to do the same. You have no right to demand neither my wealth nor labor just to give to others or support issues I disagree with. I would fight for your rights even with disagreement. However, I find you would force me to give up mine.

          • I Seigel

            1. Republicans aren’t anti-immigrant? Watch a news video of a Trump rally. Or a Cruz rally. Tell me how many minorities you see.

            What does, “To say our immigration policy is unjust is the height of ignorance” mean?

            2. So, are you advocating for corporations AND unions to not be allowed to donate to campaigns or form PACs? If that’s so, then you’ve gone against what the Supreme Court has decided, and you’re not REALLY for the First Amendment. However, I totally agree with you.

            3. The only wealth of yours that’s required is your fair share of taxes. I don’t – and liberals don’t – demand anything more. Just as conservatives would demand that liberals pay their fair share and not mooch off the taxpayers. What rights do you feel liberals are asking you to give up? The right to discriminate against people who you don’t agree with? Is that what your rant is about?

          • Starley

            1. Re read the paragraph and it tells you while the immigration policy is just. We are taking in over 1 million legally each year which has resulted in 1 in 8 persons in this country being from another country. That is more than fair as it represents about 20% of all immigrants worldwide. We take in a disproportionate share.

            2. I never mentioned either PACs or campaigns. What I mentioned was business and unions favored to the point they are a part of government. Think fascism.

            3. I really don’t care about discrimination. To force use of my personal dollars, property or labor is in violation of the 13th Amendment on slavery, and the 5th Amendment on property, and even the 10th Amendment.

            Even if I have no problem with a person, I should not be forced to participate in a celebration which I find immoral or any other reason. Whether that be renting a room to an unmarried couple or support for a gay marriage. In neither case has anyone been damaged as they have no right to either property or labor of mine. To force me to do so takes from me. I have taken nothing from them.

            I may register a business with the government, but it is mine, not theirs or anyone elses. As long as I do not endanger the public I am free provide services to those I choose. If the government takes the rights of property as its own, then they should pay for the company they are commandeering per the 5th Amendment and take all legal responsibility for their decisions. And in that event they can also provide their own labor.

            Forced servitude except for national defense is NOT a right to be granted by government.

          • I Seigel

            1. You’ve stated some facts about immigration. Great. But the claim you made was that Republicans aren’t anti-immigration, and I gave you examples that – I think – show they are. If you think your facts support your argument, I don’t see how. Unless you’re saying that the current state of affairs is Republicans’ idea. I don’t think you’re saying that, however.

            2. Fascism has NOTHING to do with businesses and unions favored to the point they are a part of government. Study Spain, Italy and Germany in the mid 20th century to understand what fascism is. Business and union involvement in government MIGHT lead to corrupt practices (see Brazil), but it has nothing to do with fascism.

            3. “To force use of my personal dollars, property or labor is in violation…” – HUH? Are you saying you object to paying taxes? What the hell are you ranting on about here?

          • Starley

            1. Republicans are not anti immigrant. They only require legal process and control… like every other country on the planet. You gave no examples of any anti immigrant policy. You mentioned racism, but you might be interested in knowing all races are welcome. Failure to get involved might be their choice, not any prejudice against anyone.

            2. “Where socialism abolished all market relations
            outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning
            all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices,
            fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages

            Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political
            representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography.
            In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism
            originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same
            industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad
            local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final
            authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to
            avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union
            strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability
            to bargain and move about freely.”


            3. I gave examples of forced labor and appropriation of property in supporting things considered against belief or conscience. Read again. Taxes are support of government programs which should not be simply to rob Jack to give to Paul. Use of taxes should be for common use systems, defense and safety.

          • I Seigel

            3. You can’t pick and choose where your taxes go to. That’s what your elected representatives do. As far as I can tell, I see no taxation program designed to redistribute wealth. Yet.

    • Carolyn

      They could always go to the county offices and count the number of registered voters on file at each county office. Oh, but that’s too difficult for those people. God forbid if they had to do a little work!

      • voncile fullwood

        If they keep them straight then they say it is a miss count like they did in Florida –this last election Florida did not even count many counties were not counted in the election fraud had that figured out with all the illegals voting

        • del

          Where there are soros machines there are rigged machines, usually in districts that fail to vote dopeocrat!

      • Wayne Giordano

        I don’t remember them saying that they knew how to count.

Google Analytics Alternative