PDA

View Full Version : Lawsuit seeks larger House under 'one person, one vote'




Flash
09-17-2009, 06:39 PM
A lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi alleging that instead of following the U.S. Constitution, Congress has allowed a system of representation where a vote in Mississippi is worth only about half that of a vote in Rhode Island or Iowa.

The action filed by an organization called Apportionment.us explains that because of the growth of the population in the U.S. to more than 300 million now, combined with a turn-of-the-last-century decision setting the number of U.S. representatives at 435, voters across the U.S. are treated far differently.

"The inequality today is severe and unjust," the organization states on its website. "The primary measure that the Supreme Court has used to determine voter equality is to compare the largest and the smallest districts. According to the 2000 census, Montana was the most under-represented and Wyoming was the most over-represented. In simple terms, it took 1.83 Montana voters to equal just 1 Wyoming voter, which is grossly unfair."

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the "Karcher" case, already has ruled that a deviation of 0.6984 percent, which is "over 90 times smaller" is unconstitutional, the organization said.

The case was filed on behalf of voters in the most under-represented states, including John Tyler Clemons of Oxford, Miss.; Jessica Wagner of Kalispell, Mont.; Krystal Brunner of Nisland, S.D.; Lisa Schea of Newark, Del.; and Frank Mylar of Sandy, Utah.


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110124

jsu718
09-17-2009, 07:05 PM
They can't just wait for the redistricting following the 2010 census?

james1906
09-17-2009, 07:12 PM
Does the Constitution allow a Congressional district to cross state lines?

TastyWheat
09-18-2009, 11:46 AM
We need smaller districts, plain and simple. Smaller districts means less gerrymandering, better accountability, and less powerful Representatives.

Thirty-Thousand.org - Return the House of Representatives to the People (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)

tangent4ronpaul
09-18-2009, 12:42 PM
otoh: if a lot of us moved to the most over represented states, or at least focused campaigning activities in them - we'd have a much better chance of getting liberty candidates elected.

-t

FSP-Rebel
09-18-2009, 12:44 PM
otoh: if a lot of us moved to the most over represented states, or at least focused campaigning activities in them - we'd have a much better chance of getting liberty candidates elected.

-t
Or people can just move to NH as part of the Free State Project for a similar outcome.

webstar
09-18-2009, 01:04 PM
If the true complaint here is that districts do NOT represent the same number of voters, why then not make that happen through a strict formula that each district must have the same number of voters with a very small variance allowing for differences in state populations where the division and formula does not always work to perfection?

It seems people are attempting to use one issue here - imbalanced congressional districts - to advocate for a completely different issue - a large House membership. This is akin to watching a game of three card monty on the streets of New York city.

How can people demand "smaller government" on the one hand but then advocate for "a bigger Congress" on the other? Lets please be consistent.

AJ Antimony
09-18-2009, 01:42 PM
If the true complaint here is that districts do NOT represent the same number of voters, why then not make that happen through a strict formula that each district must have the same number of voters with a very small variance allowing for differences in state populations where the division and formula does not always work to perfection?

It seems people are attempting to use one issue here - imbalanced congressional districts - to advocate for a completely different issue - a large House membership. This is akin to watching a game of three card monty on the streets of New York city.

How can people demand "smaller government" on the one hand but then advocate for "a bigger Congress" on the other? Lets please be consistent.

If I read your post right, then I'd say it's actually true that a bigger Congress, one with more members, would help shrink government. Why? The bigger the body, the slower the legislative process, and the more local the representative, the more accountability.

For example, I think I read somewhere that in the 1st Congress, a Representative represented about 43,000 people. Now, a Representative represents about 600,000 people. Is your Representative more likely to listen to YOU if there are more or less people in his district?

TastyWheat
09-18-2009, 03:05 PM
How can people demand "smaller government" on the one hand but then advocate for "a bigger Congress" on the other? Lets please be consistent.
Well, the size of Congress hasn't changed since 1913 but the government has gotten much bigger. Simply changing the size of the house wouldn't necessarily equate to bigger or smaller government. I do agree with AJ though, the Congress would definitely move much slower and that's almost never a bad thing. If you ask me, I'd rather be one of 60,000 constituents than one of 600,000.

Njon
09-18-2009, 04:10 PM
Does the Constitution allow a Congressional district to cross state lines?

Definitely not, but there could certainly be more districts added within the states as necessary.