Many thanks to The Federalist for publishing my article which they entitled How Not Asking About Citizenship On The Census Gives Democrats More Votes In Congress. Note that the original title was “Why Should Donald Trump, Bill de Blasio and I Get Extra Votes? and the article specifically notes that this should be a non-partisan issue because apportioning on a “one voter, one vote” basis can help Democrats in some cases.
The argument is that our country should be governed with political power equally allocated on a ‘one person, one vote’ basis. This standard was articulated by the Supreme Court in the 1960s when it ruled that state legislative districts had to have equal numbers. At that time, in many states rural districts had greater representation than urban districts due to people moving from the country-side into the cities and suburbs. Today, the situation is reversed, with urban areas having greater representation due to their disproportionately larger non-citizen populations overall compared to rural areas.
In the 1960s these Supreme Court cases were very controversial, and there was a major drive for an Article V convention to amend the Constitution to reverse those decisions. However, the principle of “one person, one vote” laid down in those cases is now broadly accepted. Then Democrats were strong advocates of such equal representation, both on principle and because it would benefit them politically. The principle of “one person, one vote” remains the same. Now the question is what do Democrats do when the principle of equal representation may conflict with their political interests in many (but not all) cases.
Why Should Donald Trump, Bill de Blasio and I Get Extra Votes?
Many thanks to The Federalist for publishing my article which they entitled How Not Asking About Citizenship On The Census Gives Democrats More Votes In Congress. Note that the original title was “Why Should Donald Trump, Bill de Blasio and I Get Extra Votes? and the article specifically notes that this should be a non-partisan issue because apportioning on a “one voter, one vote” basis can help Democrats in some cases.
The argument is that our country should be governed with political power equally allocated on a ‘one person, one vote’ basis. This standard was articulated by the Supreme Court in the 1960s when it ruled that state legislative districts had to have equal numbers. At that time, in many states rural districts had greater representation than urban districts due to people moving from the country-side into the cities and suburbs. Today, the situation is reversed, with urban areas having greater representation due to their disproportionately larger non-citizen populations overall compared to rural areas.
In the 1960s these Supreme Court cases were very controversial, and there was a major drive for an Article V convention to amend the Constitution to reverse those decisions. However, the principle of “one person, one vote” laid down in those cases is now broadly accepted. Then Democrats were strong advocates of such equal representation, both on principle and because it would benefit them politically. The principle of “one person, one vote” remains the same. Now the question is what do Democrats do when the principle of equal representation may conflict with their political interests in many (but not all) cases.