Hillary Clinton on Wednesday called for the Supreme Court to uphold the concept of “one person, one vote” after the court held oral arguments on Tuesday for a case that could change the way electoral districts are drawn and therefore who elected officials represent.
“In the Supreme Court yesterday, parties challenging Texas’ Senate apportionment plan insisted that political representation in our democracy should be based on eligible voters, instead of total population,” Clinton said in a statement. “This change would mean that many in America, including children and non-citizen residents, would no longer be counted for purposes of representation in every state in the country.”
“Such measures are an insult to the millions of Americans who have fought throughout our history for our country to achieve equality and justice for all people,” she continued. “The Supreme Court should protect political equality and turn away this harmful and reckless attempt to write off so many.”
In the case, Evenwel v. Abbott, the challengers argue that Texas’ redistricting plan using total population is unconstitutional, suggesting that the state instead use citizens or those eligible to vote to determine electoral districts. A decision in favor of the challengers could impact areas with large numbers of undocumented immigrants and convicted felons.
How does not counting NON-CITIZENS violate “one person, one vote”. I believe NON-CITIZENS are not suppose to be voting.
So non-citizens should count when determining the number of representatives a state gets, but not when grouping population into districts?
That dilutes my vote as a non-resident of Texas.
Non-citizens contribute to their communities. They work, they do pay taxes, they volunteer, they often strive to become citizens. But you, supposedly a Marine, would deny them the right to have a voice in their future.
What we are witnessing is another attempt to disenfranchise an entire swath of the population. It’s time to take down the Statue of Liberty. She is no longer relevant in America.
I’m old enough to remember when Tea Party Republicans were against taxation without representation.
Why, revolutions have been won over
lessthis exact thing.“We the people”… Not “We the registered voters” or even “We the citizens.” Non-citizens at the time included all slaves.
But, today, non-citizens frequently turn into citizens. Regardless, this is also about citizens (children, teens, ex-felons, etc.) that can’t or just don’t vote. Many of these people pay taxes.
I am surprised you support taxation without representation. You know, one of the most fundamental ideals of this country that is tied directly to “one person, one vote.”