SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Slate
If we had a fair Supreme Court not driven by partisanship in its most political cases, Thursday’s blockbuster revelation in the census case would lead the court to unanimously rule in Department of Commerce v. New York to exclude the controversial citizenship question from the decennial survey. Those newly revealed documents show that the Trump administration’s purpose in putting the citizenship question on the upcoming census was not its stated one to help Hispanic voters under the Voting Rights Act, but rather to create policy that would be “a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.” It’s difficult to produce a greater smoking gun than explicitly saying you are hoping to help the GOP by increasing white voting power. But this revelation, coming from the hard drive of a deceased Republican political operative and made available to Common Cause by his estranged daughter, is ironically more likely to lead the Republican-appointed conservative justices on the Supreme Court to allow the administration to include the question that would help states dilute the power of Hispanic voters.
[...]And here is where Thursday’s revelations fit in. The New York Times reported that the hard drive of the late Republican redistricting guru Thomas B. Hofeller contained documents indicating that the real purpose of including the citizenship question was to allow Republicans to draw new congressional, state, and local legislative districts using equal numbers of eligible voters in each district, not equal numbers of persons, a standard that would greatly reduce the power of Hispanics and Democrats in places like Texas. According to the Times, files on Hofeller’s hard drives, subpoenaed in litigation concerning North Carolina redistricting, show that Hofeller “wrote a study in 2015 concluding that adding a citizenship question to the census would allow Republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps to stymie Democrats. And months after urging President Trump’s transition team to tack the question onto the census, he wrote the key portion of a draft Justice Department letter claiming the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act—the rationale the administration later used to justify its decision.”
[...]Thursday’s revelations should be damning. The ACLU is already seeking sanctions in the trial court in the census case for government officials lying about the real reason for including the citizenship question. But instead the revelations may help to prop up a case that should embarrass government lawyers to argue.
Yep.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday May 30 2019, @10:46PM (10 children)
Interestingly, rural agricultural areas have lots of visa and green card holders too, as do lots of red southwestern states.
I am not completely convinced that this fully benefits the R guys, if suddenly they lose representatives because those reliably-R rural counties "shrank".
As for justifying it : What does the constitution say ? Do representatives represent a fixed number of voters, or a fixed number of people ? In the latter case, once again not all votes are equal in the USA...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NewNic on Thursday May 30 2019, @11:06PM
On the basis of population. But check the history.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 31 2019, @05:14AM
Which may be cast by their employer.
Too soon?
(Score: 4, Informative) by mhajicek on Friday May 31 2019, @05:29AM (7 children)
All votes have never been equal in the USA. The votes of people in less populous states are worth more.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 31 2019, @06:34AM
Fuck Wyoming! Those free-loading bastards!
(Score: 3, Informative) by EEMac on Friday May 31 2019, @01:36PM (5 children)
Yes, of course. That's what keeps the union of the United States of America intact. Without it, the people of Wyoming (and _many_ other states) would be completely swamped by a few population-heavy coastal cities, and would never have a voice in national government.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 31 2019, @02:45PM (3 children)
So it's "One man, one vote, except when doing otherwise would benefit me."
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 31 2019, @04:33PM (1 child)
One Man, One Vote, where the Value of Vote is a function of Location.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday May 31 2019, @08:08PM
You could think of it as the rest of the country throwing them a bone to subject themselves to life in Wyoming. You may not think that's fair, but it was negotiated in good faith long ago (before Wyoming was a place), so any change would need to re-open those negotiations.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 3, Touché) by EEMac on Friday May 31 2019, @08:36PM
I live in a coastal state. But nice try.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 31 2019, @03:23PM
Despite the fact that you disagree with me [soylentnews.org] (check your facts friend, and you'll see that what I say is true), one of the things that made our nation possible (most of the smaller states would never have ratified the Constitution if the big states could just run roughshod over them), is the idea of a *federal* republic, with each state having its say (in the Senate), while the people have theirs (in the House).
That was put in place for *exactly* the reasons you mention.
One of the key ideas behind our Constitution was to employ democracy, but ensure that the rights of minorities (e.g., small states) were protected.
That concept was watered down some with the direct election of Senators (which I think, given the circumstances, was on the whole a good idea, given the corruption and poor quality of many state legislatures).
That said, despite the fact that I live in one of those "population-heavy coastal" states (not cities, it's the states that have two representatives in the Senate, so it wouldn't matter If I lived in a city or in a trailer in the woods in a populous state), I'm still in favor of our federal system. Including the Electoral College. And for exactly the same reasons as you bring up.
However, if the folks from those small states would elect people who were willing to deal in 'the art of the possible' rather than obstructionism and blaming 'those other guys' (gee, it's funny how you folks didn't even *try* to do Immigration reform or even present a *draft* plan to replace the ACA when you had both houses *and* the presidency from 2017-2019. I wonder why?), we might actually get some governing done. Just a crazy thought.