The Constitution adopted in 1787 left the Federal government without any clear power or mechanism, other than through constitutional amendment, to institute a national conception of voting rights, to express a national vision of democracy. Although the Constitution was promulgated in the name of "We, the People of the United States," the individual states retained the power to define just who "the people" were. Stated somewhat differently, citizenship in the new nation, controlled by the Federal government, was divorced from the right to vote, a fact that was to have significant repercussions for almost two centuries.
Also problematic, in the long run, was the Constitution's failure to guarantee to any Americans the right to vote for the highest office in the land, the President of the United States. President were to be chosen through a complex mechanism that later came to be known as the "Electoral College". "Electors" in each state were to meet and cast ballots for two persons, and those ballots were to be transmitted to Congress, where they would be opened and counted. The person receiving the largest number of votes would be elected President and the runner-up would become the Vice-President.
But the Constitution left entirely to State Legislatures the question of how the electors themselves would be chosen. Article 2, Section 1 specified that "each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." The states were not required to hold popular elections to choose Presidential Electors, and State Legislatures could, whenever they wished, change the "manner" of appointing electors. Not surprisingly, during the early years of the Republic, some State Legislature chose Presidential Electors by them selves, leaving the people of their states no role whatsoever in determining who would weld the Executive Power of the new Federal government.
Today in 2016, the Supreme Court will decide Evenwel v. Abbott.
The argument in Evenwel v. Abbott involves as fundamental an issue for a democracy as can be imagined: is everyone represented in elected governments, or are those eligible to vote entitled to special influence and the political power making that possible? The reason that such a choice is just now arising is that it is controlled by the half-century-old constitutional principle of “one person, one vote,” but the Supreme Court has never specified how to measure that equality.
For decades, the states have opted to divide up legislative seats, at the state and local level, by starting with total population, dividing that by the number of seats at stake, and then (with some modifications) coming up with roughly equal district populations. With modern census data and advanced computers, it is possible to come very close to mathematical parity, although the Court has allowed legislatures to come within ten percent of that, if they are making allowances for such permissible things as respecting county and city boundaries and even, to a degree, protecting incumbent lawmakers.
In fact, the principle of “one person, one vote” has been understood as equality of districts, rather than voters, on the theory that everyone placed in each district, whether eligible to vote or not, is entitled to be represented by the winner. But there is a political movement now, increasingly active, that is pushing for the famous phrase to mean voter equality, so the process would start with making sure that those who are qualified to vote should wind up with roughly equal numbers in each district.
If there is great disparity between the numbers of eligible voters between districts, the theory goes, there is no voter equality: those in districts with fewer voters have considerably more clout, at election time, than those with many voters, even if the districts’ total populations are equal. A district over-populated with voters is said to dilute the ballot strength of each, compared to some other districts’ residents.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment