SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

[Perfection]

Because only citizens can vote.

Thanks Jay, I didn't know that, that's why I asked the question.

I asked the question because I wanted a reasonable account as to how you expect census data particularly helpful to help against voter fraud.

Here's my opinion, I think it's some BS excuse you pulled from some conservative talking head who bases his opinions off twitter trolls.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[rah]

It sounds better then we don't want more brown people voting. You always have to think of the optics. (well they really don't)

 

[Lexicus]

Non-citizens should be allowed to vote.

 

[onejayhawk]

Non-citizens should be allowed to vote.

This is a common attitude. The concern is that people are cheating to make it happen. Of course, investigations into such cheating are immediately labeled as racist. It's standard procedure.

J

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Non-citizens should be allowed to vote.

No solid basis for that. You get warped incentives.

 

[Lexicus]

No solid basis for that. You get warped incentives.

I disagree completely. Non-citizens living in the US are stakeholders in the US every bit as much as you and I.

The concern is that people are cheating to make it happen. Of course, investigations into such cheating are immediately labeled as racist. It's standard procedure.

Well, because there is no basis whatever for the "concern", except general racism on the one hand, and ensuring that there are no free elections so Republicans can always win on the other.

 

[onejayhawk]

I disagree completely. Non-citizens living in the US are stakeholders in the US every bit as much as you and I.Well, because there is no basis whatever for the "concern", except general racism on the one hand, and ensuring that there are no free elections so Republicans can always win on the other.

As I said, it is standard procedure to accuse racism before examining any evidence. What is interesting is a common belief that all non-citizens will strongly favor the same party. I have seen no evidence, but the belief spans both parties.

It is also interesting that the Constitution does not grant the right to vote. There are various amendments that guarantee the right to vote for minorities, former slaves, women and which lowered the minimum age to 18 but no granting of the right. Most states have statutes that prevent felons from voting, either for a period or permanently.

J

 

[Lexicus]

As I said, it is standard procedure to accuse racism before examining any evidence.

I've examined plenty of evidence. We've been through this before. It's been shown any number of times that voter fraud is a non-issue in the US. Electoral fraud, of course, is a whole different kettle of fish, and that's almost exclusively perpetrated by the Republican Party to keep itself in power.

What is interesting is a common belief that all non-citizens will strongly favor the same party. I have seen no evidence, but the belief spans both parties.

I actually have no idea whom they will vote for.

It is also interesting that the Constitution does not grant the right to vote.

Well, yes, as you are a fascist I am not surprised that you find this "interesting".

Moderator Action: Let's not throw the term fascist around indiscriminately, please. --LM

 

[Estebonrober]

So sometimes news breaks and you’d just like an acknowledgement from your normal friendly forum adversaries that it is damning and proves your point so well that maybe they rethink their take on it. Lol well anyways.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...e-court-conservatives-white-voters-alito.html

And here is where Thursday’s revelations fit in. The New York Times reported that the hard drive of the late Republican redistricting guru Thomas B. Hofeller contained documents indicating that the real purpose of including the citizenship question was to allow Republicans to draw new congressional, state, and local legislative districts using equal numbers eligible voters in each district, not equal numbers of persons, a standard that would greatly reduce the power of Hispanics and Democrats in places like Texas. According to the Times, files on Hofeller’s hard drives, subpoenaed in litigation concerning North Carolina redistricting, show that Hofeller “wrote a study in 2015 concluding that adding a citizenship question to the census would allow Republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps to stymie Democrats. And months after urging President Trump’s transition team to tack the question onto the census, he wrote the key portion of a draft Justice Department letter claiming the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act—the rationale the administration later used to justify its decision.”

Indeed, the new documents should make that case indisputable. Hofeller’s documents describe how obtaining citizenship data would allow those drawing district lines to specifically harm Hispanic voters by packing even more of them into “Latino districts to bring their populations up to acceptable levels.” Common Cause also discovered a direct paper trail from the Hofeller documents to the pretextual DOJ request for the census question. The DOJ version of the Voting Rights Act enforcement request cited a paragraph from Hofeller’s work verbatim and included much of the exact same substance of Hofeller’s research presented in the exact same order. In the court proceedings, though, administration officials actively hid Hofeller’s involvement. Again, all of this should be a slam dunk. For the court’s conservatives, though, it likely won’t be.

Of course just like the conservative Judges on the courts our local friendly conservative forum guys will completely ignore this reality or bloody embrace it as what should be policy. “Only white Republicans should count!”

 

[Farm Boy]

That's a really big paraphrase of the issue about whether or not non-citizen residents should be apportioned representatives based on their regional citizens' votes, in the same way that citizen children are apportioned representatives based on their adults' votes, yes? Or is it something different? It's slate, and I'm not super interested in reading it at the moment.

 

[rah]

Then just take it as verification of why Republicans actually want a citizenship question on the census and leave it as that. (which is the only reason he posted it, i think)

 

[Socrates99]

I had to check this thread today in light of Mitch McConnell saying if a SCOTUS seat opened in 2020 he'd fill it. I probably shouldn't be shocked at his hypocrisy but I guess the open blatant hypocrisy is just stunning.

 

[rah]

Actually I would be shocked at any less hypocrisy from him at this point.

 

[Socrates99]

Mitch makes me wish I believed in Hell. I'm certain if it were real he'd have his own special dark corner reserved there.

 

[rah]

Every time I see that look on his face, it seems that he may have found it in life.

 

[Lexicus]

Mitch makes me wish I believed in Hell. I'm certain if it were real he'd have his own special dark corner reserved there.

I mostly stay sane by imagining him the subject of a Stalinist show trial, or being tortured in the basement of Lefortovo.

 

[Farm Boy]

Then just take it as verification of why Republicans actually want a citizenship question on the census and leave it as that. (which is the only reason he posted it, i think)

No, I want to know if that's the debate. Because that's a pretty legit question. I'm not talking allocation of resources per person, or funding, or government services per resident, or taxes, or schools. I'm curious, specifically, as to representation and who elects them. Just like the Senate being the way the Senate is a legit issue. Because I vote for my son, my neighbors vote for my son, Chicagoans vote for my son, who gets his share of representation in the big House and the little House white house, etc, theoretically. Or will, once a census catches him, as it's a rough sketch and we've had the better part of a decade where one has not. He doesn't matter in popular vote elections like the mansion at all until he actually drags himself to a poll.

 

[schlaufuchs]

No solid basis for that. You get warped incentives.

A state/government is not legitimate without the consent/input of the governed.
Noncitizen residents of a state/government are governed by that state/government.
Noncitizen residents ought, therefore, to be allowed to vote.

As Lex said: incentives don't matter, political party doesn't matter, outcomes don't matter. This is a point of political legitimacy and ontology. If you truly believe in the democratic principle, then this should be a really straightforward issue.

 

[rah]

No, I want to know if that's the debate. Because that's a pretty legit question. I'm not talking allocation of resources per person, or funding, or government services per resident, or taxes, or schools. I'm curious, specifically, as to representation and who elects them. Just like the Senate being the way the Senate is a legit issue. Because I vote for my son, my neighbors vote for my son, Chicagoans vote for my son, who gets his share of representation in the big House and the little House white house, etc, theoretically. Or will, once a census catches him, as it's a rough sketch and we've had the better part of a decade where one has not. He doesn't matter in popular vote elections like the mansion at all until he actually drags himself to a poll.

That's a separate discussion. He posted that because it was relevant to our earlier discussion that adding that question could taint the census, and that e-mail shows that it was the actual intent. To taint the census to Republican benefit. Which is what started it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Upstream issues taint downstream issues, not the other way around. My question is answered.