[EL] FW: Re: The Supreme Court's Decision to Decide Whether It's One Person, One Vote or One Voter, One Vote

[David Ely]

I had forgotten that the apportionment of representatives to the states was
also in the 14th amendment.  How bizarre would it be for the court to find
that a state which internally used the same apportionment scheme as that
required between states in Section 2 of the 14th amendment was in violation
of the equal protection clause of Section 1.  This would imply that the
authors of the 14th amendment were intentionally denying equal protection of
the laws (in the form of congressional representation) to eligible voters in
states which had a higher ratio of eligible voters to population.

 

The 14th Amendment has parts which apply to citizens and parts that apply to
all persons. Both the Equal Protection clause in Section 1 and the
apportionment of representatives in Section 2 refer to persons, not
citizens, and not eligible voters.  The difference is explicit in both
cases.

 

Beginning of Section 1 defines citizens as a subset of person. Then there
are separate guarantees of the rights of citizens (privileges and
immunities) and of persons( due process and equal protection).

Beginning of Section 2 gives apportionment rule based on "whole number of
persons". Later in section 2 is a proportional reduction in representation
based on the denial of voting rights to adult male citizens.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150527/8dbc13c0/attachment.html>