If the court counts people instead of voters it gives voters in large population districts an advantage

NY Times:

Supreme Court to Examine ‘One Person One Vote’

The court has so far not resolved the issue of whether the principle means that voting districts should have the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters.
Voters in a district with a large population of people not legible to vote would have their votes  count more than those in a district with a smaller number of ineligible voters.  That seems fundamentally unfair, but it would not be the first time it happened.  The original 3/5ths compromise allowed slave states to count their slaves as 3/5ths of a person in calculating the number of house seats they were entitled to.  Does the court really want to go back to that type of standard?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains