Demos and the ACLU here describe all eighteen of the amici curiae briefs submitted in opposition to the state of Ohio, in the U.S. Supreme Court voter purge case, Husted v A. Philip Randolph Institute, 16-980. The oral argument date hasn’t been set yet.
The list includes both the national Libertarian Party, and also the Ohio Libertarian Party.
At least there is some mention of what the case is about at the bottom of the publication.
Again – is the definition of elector-voter directly connected with registration ???
ie the USA regime has ZERO power to define who are the Elector-Voters in a State —
14-2,15,19,26 amdts are all negative — for well known historical reasons
— as if history means any thing to the usual suspect New Age gangsters.
—-
Registration laws obviously came along with larger populations — local election officials not personally knowing local residents.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/husted-v-philip-randolph-institute/
has ALL of the briefs — most of the Demos briefs not yet on the SB list.
Oral arguments have been set for November 8, 2017 (per Scotusblog).
For some reason, the briefs for this case alone are not available on the ABA site.
@DR, the brief for the State of Ohio is available from Scotusblog. It explains the case, without the emotive language on the Demos page.
@DR
An argument could be made that the right to vote is being abridged, if a person who had registered to vote and then not voted for some time was not permitted to vote. This would properly be enforced by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment – though Congress would claim that they were enforcing Equal Protection or the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments.
JR —
For some MORON reason the usual suspects have NOT YET done a proper 14-2 case.
The 1870 Census had a yes/no listing for male USA Citizens 21 plus in each State.
Such Census item was dropped later.
The ABA site seems to be working again for the case, but it doesn’t appear to have any briefs for the appellees (plaintiffs, below). I’m pretty sure there is also an amicus brief from a different set of States supporting Ohio.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/preview_home.html
@DR,
You may be interested in these:
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol46/iss1/5/ Click on Download
This is Law Review Article (from 1960) considering a hypothetical legal challenge to the apportionment statute, as well as alternate language that Congress could enact.
https://casetext.com/case/saunders-v-wilkins
Saunders v Wilkins is a case from 1945 in which Henry Saunders sought to run for Congress as an At-Large Representative from Virginia, on the theory that Virginia’s representation under A14s2 should be reduced, and therefore Virginia had too many congressional districts, and until Virginia redistricted, the representatives should be elected at large. The district court decided that the case was not judiciable and the 4th Circuit affirmed that decision.
The present case in California challenging the size of the legislature seeks application of A14s2 sanctions.
Had one of the original forms of the 14th Amendment been approved that simply would have based apportionment on the number of males over the age of 21 who could vote for the larger chamber of the legislature (and therefore Representatives in Congress), it might have been enforced. States would have been less likely to impose property and literacy requirements if it cost them representation.
There was some opposition from New Englanders, since this would cost them representation because it had relatively fewer adult males, since elder sons were more likely to emigrate to the West where they could own land, and later attract a wife, and even later have children.
While the 1870 Census was originally was intended to make inquiries about abridgement, this was dropped. The Census did request information from State authorities about how many such persons there were, but these were pretty desultory. Congress in the 1871-1872 apportionment tried to apply them, but they could not actually justify any change in the apportionment. Congress was concerned that northern States would lose representation due to the mooting of the 3/5 clause, and so expanded the size of the House. They later passed a second apportionment bill, to ensure that no State lost representatives. There is no mathematical basis for this second apportionment.
14th Amendment section 2 1870 census
type/copy the above in a search engine —
folks with LOTS of time can report back.
More later.
IE Even the Congress genius moron folks noted 14-2 (July 1868) and the coming 1870 Census.
law regarding 14-2 —
2 U.S. Code
§6. Reduction of representation
Should any State deny or abridge the right of any of the male inhabitants thereof, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, to vote at any election named in the amendment to the Constitution, article 14, section 2, except for participation in the rebellion or other crime, the number of Representatives apportioned to such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall have to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
(R.S. §22.)
Codification
R.S. §22 derived from act Feb. 2, 1872, ch. 11, §6, 17 Stat. 29.
——
Due to the MORONS the 1872 law came AFTER the 1870 Census.
Due to SCOTUS MORONS – it is NOT exactly *clear* what *person* has *standing* to enforce 14-2 and/or 2-6 —
voter victims, census folks, USA House of Reps, any State obeying 14-2, local USA Dist Attys, USA Prez, USA Atty Gen, etc. ???
@DR, My information is based on the debate in 1871/2 over the actual apportionment based on the 1870 Census.
It appears that there was an attempt to (1) Implement A14s2 in statute; and (2) Provide the census forms. Because of the pending 15th Amendment; the two issues were separated. The apportionment bill died in the Senate, while the census form bill passed.
@DR,
In the 1872 Apportionment Bill, Congress could not figure out a way to actually implement 14-2 so simply stuck the text of the section into the statute.
If you examine the text of the Statute:
Section 1, The actual apportionment.
Section 2, Requires election by single-member districts; but states getting additional representatives may elect them at-large until they redistrict.
Section 3, Sets uniform election date for Representatives (1st Tuesday after 1st Monday in November)
Section 4, Permits runoff on a later date.
Section 5, Requires a territory to have full population for a representative before it can be admitted.
Section 6, Toothless statute to enforce A14s2 (unless you can convince a court to enforce it).
JR
Spare me and the list about *could not figure out a way to* do such and such.
The Congress folks managed to enact the 13th Amdt (1865), the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 14th Amdt (1868), the 15th Amdt (1870), the 1870 Enforcement Act (for the 15th Amdt) and the 1871 Civil Rights Act (for the 14th Amdt).
The EXECUTIVE/JUDICIAL NON-enforcement of 14-2 and 2-6 (esp. in 1868-1876) is one more EVIL sign of the TOTAL rot in the nearly DEAD USA Const.
The so-called *radical* 1866 Congress folks were well aware that the 1861-1865 slave monarchs / oligarchs in the slave States had maintained their EVIL power by having very restricted / limited numbers of voters in their regimes — thus the UNIVERSAL right to vote in 14-2 for the specified officers — ALL adult male USA citizens.
IE – having lots of brainwashed lower class white troops [many NON-voters] in the Confed Army to get killed / maimed in the Civil War — to defend slavery (ie — big $$$) of the slavery monarchs / oligarchs.
Sorry females — until 19th Amdt in 1920.
The 14th Amdt was especially produced to avoid having the Civil War resume after the *reconstructed* southern State regimes in 1865-1866 passed all sorts of *Black Codes* to keep ex-slaves in a de facto slavery condition — no or very limited political and civil rights.
Southern blacks were left to rot by the USA regime after the 1876 election — until the 1950s-1960s.
SCOTUS has been full of H-A-C-K-S since Lincoln appointed his party HACKS in 1861-1865 followed esp by the HACKS appointed by Prez Grant in 1869-1877.
Thus each SCOTUS HACK vacancy is now a constitutional CRISIS.
—
PR and AppV.
Why do you think that anyone other than The Congress has the authority to apportion representatives and taxes?
The 14th Amendment simply modified the basis for the apportionment of representatives (that for taxes is still based on total population).
@DR,
Have you read the ‘Congressional Globe’ for the Second Session of the 42nd Congress when the apportionment based on the 1870 Census was being debated?
JR
Have you read the ‘Congressional Globe’ for the First Session of the 39th Congress when the proposed 14th Amdt., Sec 2 was being debated ???
esp about the *penalty* stuff- losing USA Reps (and E.C. votes).
Another Prof has written lots more about !4-2 — see
*Our Unconstitutional Reapportionment Process*
via
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95064
https://www.theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Howard_Speech_5-23-1866.pdf
14 Amdt, Sec 2
39-1 Cong. Globe pp. 2766-2767
PDF, pp 6-12
THE speech in the Senate about the 14th Amdt.
The 14-2 stuff happened mainly due to the failure of the MORONS who wrote the 13th Amdt to note that the ex-slave State regimes (full of 1866 Donkeys) would get a higher percentage of the USA Reps and E.C. votes by the implied repeal of the 3/5 slave math in Art. I, Sec. 2.
@DR,
Any amendments to the Constitution after that 1866 debate, and 1871 when the Congress was debating the apportionment bill?
BTW, see the top of Page 9 where Senator Howard explains why the complicated proportionality language was there.
I found the Magliocca paper superficial, and didn’t explain what would happen even if the courts rules the apportionment language in statute unconstitutional. The apportionment still has to be based on the Census – that is a constitutional requirement. The current census does not even ask a citizenship question (because they don’t want to reduce the apportionment based on inhabitants who are unauthorized to inhabit).
Magliocca seems to think the census form in 1870 was a questionaire (“excuse me good person, are you male, over the age of 21, and a citizen of the United States? Is your right to voted abridged? Are you a felon or rebel? Is the basis of the abridgement for a reason other than that you are a felon or rebel? Is it because you are an imbecile? insane? illiterate?
Senator Howard in his speech confirmed that the abridgement had to be on an individual basis, you could not make a class determination.
Would your right to vote be abridged if the pictures of Donkeys and Elephants be removed from your ballot?
During the 1871-2 debate, it was noted that Pennsylvania required payment of taxes (at minimum a 25-cent poll tax every two years). Was the right to vote for all Pennsylvanians abridged on the basis of the levying of the tax, or on those who did not pay the tax, or on those who could not afford to pay the tax?
The data for the numbers of USA citizen male adults WAS collected and reported in the 1870 Census — even without checking each individuals paperwork (Citizen, 21 plus) or body parts (male).
Such data has not been collected/reported since 1870 due to the CORRUPT gerrymander hacks in the gerrymander Congress — esp after the 1876 Prez election with its major chaos.
What if the rotted ex-slave regimes passed a law saying that ONLY votes for Donkey hacks were legal ??? — any denial or abridgement of the *right to vote* ???
See later commie and nazi ONE party regimes — with their so-called elections.