On September 18, the Texas government filed its main brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Evenwel v Abbott. That is the lawsuit over whether the U.S. Constitution requires states to draw U.S. House and legislative districts on the basis of how many eligible voters live in the area, as opposed to the normal practice of using population. The Texas state government is defending the normal system. The people who filed the lawsuit are opposed to using population.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted this case, the Court still hasn’t set the oral argument date. Thanks to Marty Lederman for the link.
51 years of moron gerrymander cases.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 pack/crack gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL. Much, much worse primary math.
If there is a statewide vote, then each district does NOT have ONE vote — it has the number of ACTUAL votes in the district.
Thus — P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
P.R. =
Party Seats = Total Seats x Party Votes / Total Votes
Math difficult ONLY for math morons and esp. SCOTUS super math MORONS getting lots of MORON briefs from the usual suspect MORON groups.
Donkeys love using population for gerrymanders — when such populations having lots of ILLEGAL INVADERS (as in Texas) — makes it lots easier to elect a Donkey robot hack with less actual voters and votes.
How soon before Civil WAR II starts ??? — due to the nonstop gerrymanders in the USA since 1776 — inherited from the gerrymander formation of the English House of Commons in the DARK AGE 1200s/
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/evenwel-v-abbott/
Briefs in the case.
RE: 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 – June 1866
The USA had just had a HORRIFIC Civil WAR – about 750,000 DEAD men on both sides.
Was the *population* in 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 intended to include possible MILLIONS of ILLEGAL INVADERS / OCCUPIERS from foreign nations being counted in ANY census ??? Duh.
Expect one more PERVERSION opinion from the SCOTUS hacks who are experts in making PERVERSION classification of the LAW on all sorts of subjects.
The brief is more nuanced. It is actually arguing that it is up to the state (or city) to decide. If the SCOTUS agrees, then there may be attempts to switch.
Particularly interesting is that they argue that the 9th Circuit’s decision in ‘Garza’ was erroneous. In that case, the 9th Circuit ruled population is the only basis for apportionment of supervisor districts in Los Angeles. But Judge Kozinski in his dissent argued that if we resorted to understanding the fundamental principles, that the conclusion would be different.
Texas is inviting the SCOTUS to go back to fundamental principles, rather than trying to interpret quotations from decisions where the SCOTUS was not directly addressing the issue.