June 2, 2015

MEET THE MAN TRYING TO GET RID OF “ONE MAN, ONE VOTE” IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Predictably, Talking Points Memo isn’t enthused. But really, limiting the pool to eligible voters and not counting illegals for purposes of redistricting isn’t really a challenge to the logic of Baker v. Carr, but rather an application of that logic. So casting this as an effort to undo one-man-one-vote is a bit shaky.

But given the way in which small urban enclaves exercise total control over such states as Illinois, California, and New York, perhaps the equal-protection analysis in Baker v. Carr needs to be tempered with the Republican Form Of Government considerations contained in the Guaranty Clause, which would recognize the right of different communities to have more of a voice in their own governance rather than being ruled from afar. Thus, the real critique here has to do with not trying to overturn Baker.

InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.