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

[Marty Lederman]

Along the same lines as David's post, check out what Deputy Solicitor
General Roberts wrote on this question 25 years ago (in his capacity as
counsel for the USG, of course):

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-curious-result-urged-by-appellants.html

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:35 PM, David Ely <ely at compass-demographics.com>
wrote:

> 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/20150527/90ebcedd/attachment.html>