[EL] Counting Everyone for ‘One Person, One Vote'

[David A. Holtzman]

“If the constitution is to be read to require any specific rule of 
apportionment to districting...” is a pretty big “if”.

And apportionment of representation (voting power) in the lower house of 
Congress to states by number of residents is not strictly according to 
“a democratic theory” if some of the residents aren’t allowed to vote 
for Representatives. Think of when women could not vote.Actually, since 
the Fourteenth Amendment says “Indians not taxed” are excluded, it’s a 
“taxocratic” theory, or pay-to-play.

I would love to see the S.Ct. require states to allow all their 
residents to vote because states get representation apportioned by 
resident count.


I don’t think the Constitution requires districting at all, except for 
the judicial districts (for criminal trial juries) mentioned in the 
Sixth Amendment.(Anybody here know the criteria for drawing those, off 
the top of your head?)Without districting, a state could elect its House 
delegation by Single Transferable Vote, and thereby achieve excellent 
proportional representation.

(The other mentions of “district” in the Constitution are for the “seat 
of Government” “District” we know as the District of Columbia.)


- dah

On 6/9/2015 6:48 AM, David Ely wrote:
>
> No but apportionment is an aspect of redistricting, the part that 
> determines the size of the districts. []
>
> What you mean to say is that redistricting is not the apportionment of 
> representatives to the states. The point of this discussion is that 
> the constitution and the writings of the authors articulate a 
> democratic theory underlying the apportionment of representation to 
> the states. If the constitution is to be read to require any specific 
> rule of apportionment to districting, it should be a rule consistent 
> with the democratic theory embodied in the constitution.
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of 
> *David A. Holtzman
> *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 2:53 PM
> *To:* [EL]
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Counting Everyone for ‘One Person, One Vote'
>
> Please, everyone, redistricting is not apportionment!  - dah
>
>
>
>         “Counting Everyone for ‘One Person, One Vote'”
>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73269>
>
>     Posted onJune 8, 2015 7:15 am
>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73269>by*Rick Hasen*
>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
>     Jost on Justice.
>     <http://jostonjustice.blogspot.com/2015/06/counting-everyone-for-one-person-one.html>
>


-- 
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com

Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be 
confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an 
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to 
an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in 
error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying 
of this email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email 
in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150609/a718b4c3/attachment.html>