|
|
Supreme Court Helps Define ‘One Person, One Vote’
A cherub holding an open book adorns a flagpole on the plaza of the Supreme
Court in Washington, Monday, April 4, 2016. The justices ruled in a case
involving the constitutional principle of “one person, one vote” and unanimously
upheld a Texas law that counts everyone, not just eligible voters, in deciding
how to draw districts. (Associated Press)
“One person, one vote” is a guiding principle of American democracy. But
its exact meaning continues to be debated.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided one dispute.
In April, the court ruled that states can count all residents to set up
election districts and not just those allowed to vote.
The issue is important because it decides how many seats in Congress and
legislatures are given states and local communities.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the decision. In her
ruling, she provided a history lesson.
In 1776, when the U.S. declared independence from Great Britain, only
people who owned property could vote. It was not until 1920 that women won the
right to vote.
Slaves were not permitted to vote. It took the Voting Rights Act of 1964 to
end rules that stopped African-Americans from voting in some southern
states.
In 2016, children under 18 still cannot vote. Nor can prisoners.
But in her ruling, Ginsburg wrote the nation’s founders believed everyone
--- whether they voted or not – should be represented by their government. She
said all people need government services.
“Representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible to vote,”
Ginsburg wrote.
Michael Li works on voting rights issues for the Brennan Center for
Democracy in New York. He said the Supreme Court ruling is important.
“We fought a revolution over taxation without representation and early on
in our history we decided that people should be represented the same way,
whether they vote or can’t vote,” Li said.
He said the Supreme Court ruling will help undocumented immigrants because
they will continue to get counted, even if they cannot vote.
Two Supreme Court Justices – Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- also voted
with Ginsburg in the 8-0 ruling. But they said the ruling should have limited
effects.
Thomas and Alito said the ruling means the states can draw election
districts based on all residents -- not just voters. The ruling does not mean
the states must do this.
“The Constitution leaves the choice to the people alone – not to this
court,” Thomas wrote.
Currently, all 50 states use U.S. Census Bureau data to determine
representation. That includes all those counted – both voters and
non-voters.
History of “one person, one vote”
American history is full of fights about how to define “one person, one
vote.”
In 1787, there was a dispute between the northern states, where slavery was
illegal, and southern states, where slavery was permitted.
In the North, people argued states that deny African-Americans the right to
vote – and all other freedoms – should not count them for representation in
Congress.
As a compromise, a slave was counted as 3/5 of a person. With the end of
slavery in 1865 after the Civil War, the rule ended.
In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that states must create legislative
districts based on equal representation. At the time, some big cities, such as
Los Angeles, were given the same representation in state legislatures as small
communities.
There are other voting issues that likely will make their way through the
courts. One is whether requiring voters to show picture identification violates
the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.
Supporters say requiring identification reduces fraud. But opponents say
fraud is not a problem. They say the requirement will make it hard for
minorities and older people without identification to vote.
Therefore, these opponents say, requiring picture identification violates
the principle of “one person, one vote.”
Words in This Story
principle – n. a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and
wrong and that influences your actions
residents – n. people who live in a community
eligible – v. able to do or receive something
revolution - n. the usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule
of one government and start a new one
lesson - n. something learned through experience; something that is
taught
fraud - n. cheating; using dishonest methods to make something value from
another person
|
|
发表于 2017-10-31 23:21:01