Supreme Court to weigh meaning of 'One person, one vote.'

[elleng]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/us/supreme-court-to-weigh-meaning-of-one-person-one-vote.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[DonCoquixote]

1. OOOOOOOHHHHH ^%&*%$#!

You know Tony and his boys are going to try to skew this in the favor of rich buying votes.

[DonCoquixote]

2. and here is the reason

It would, he said, “shift power markedly at every level, away from cities and neighborhoods with many immigrants and many children and toward the older, whiter, more exclusively native-born areas in which a higher proportion of the total population consists of eligible voters.”

Translation: The GOP knows it's voting base is dying, so it is trying to make their votes count more than they deserve, and the rest of us count less.

[elleng]

4. The 'he' you're referring to,

quoted in the NYT, is Joseph Fishkin, assistant professor at University of Texas at Austin law school. http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/jrf84/

Unfortunately NYT isn't allowing me to copy (and paste,) so my post is severely wanting, substantively.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. Ugh.

A 1964 Supreme Court decision, Reynolds v. Sims, ruled that voting districts must contain very close to the same number of people. But the court did not say which people count.

'which people count'? In any sane world, 'people' would be taken to mean, you know, 'people'. Not 'some subset of people'.