Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Fri May 18, 2018, 11:08 AM May 2018

Trump Official: DOJ Has 'No Position' On Citizenship And Apportionment

Source: Talking Points Memo



By Tierney Sneed | May 18, 2018 10:15 am

John Gore, the Trump Justice Department official who leads the Civil Rights Division, told Congress Friday that the department has “no position” on whether number of citizens should play a role in how congressional districts are apportioned.

He was responding to a question at a House Oversight Committee hearing from Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), who asked whether knowing the number of citizenships should play a role in apportionment. Gore was behind the Justice Department request to add a citizenship question to a Census

“That’s a very important question. It’s a very important issue. It’s not one that the Department of Justice takes a position on,” Gore said. He added that the request was driven by enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, “not the separate question of how congressional seats are apportioned across the Constitution.”

The Constitution says that U.S. congressional districts should be drawn using total population. But some believe it’s an open question whether states can exclude non-citizens in drawing state legislative districts. Republicans in Missouri are already pushing to put such a requirement on November’s ballot.



Read more: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/john-gore-doj-no-position-on-citizenship-apportionment

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump Official: DOJ Has 'No Position' On Citizenship And Apportionment (Original Post) DonViejo May 2018 OP
idiotic argument, imho. the constitution originally included 3/5th of slaves, clearly not citizens. unblock May 2018 #1
+1000 n/t SpankMe May 2018 #2

unblock

(52,199 posts)
1. idiotic argument, imho. the constitution originally included 3/5th of slaves, clearly not citizens.
Fri May 18, 2018, 11:25 AM
May 2018

slavery is of course illegal and the 3/5th clause is no longer in the constitution, but given that the original intent was clearly to include non-citizens, at least fractionally, it's very difficult to argue that the constitution should now be interpreted to exclude non-citizens.

moreover, apportionment is based on "free persons". the constitution uses the term "citizen" elsewhere, but not for apportionment.


this seems to be an easy one, citizenship is not relevant to apportionment, imho.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Trump Official: DOJ Has '...