Skip to main content

One Person, One Vote: A Reconsideration

 




A series of Warren Court decisions, which were at the time very controversial but which have come since to seem anodyne, created a "one person, one vote" rule for legislative districting. 

The U.S. Senate was the single great exception to this rule, created by Constitutional language specific enough to avoid being interpreted away. Its "districts" are state lines and of course they can't be re-worked with each census. 

But as for House districts, or state legislative districts, including that of the 'upper chamber' of a state bicameral house, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Warren era mandated one person, one vote. This is why every census year since then has been a starting line for a scramble to re-write district lines to comply with this rule and allow for the demographic changes of the preceding ten years.

Key decisions in this line?

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)

Reynolds v. Sims (1964).

Of course there have been epicycles to work out. Gerrymandering within the limits created by Reynolds is logically possible and there have been lots of efforts to have the court make doctrine much more restrictive about what districts can look like. But as a floor, if not as a ceiling, the rules created by those three cases have held. 

Yet now comes new from Colorado of the dream of one Gubernatorial candidate there: to give the lovely Rocky Mountain state its own electoral college. so they can elect their Governor in the sort of cockamanie way that the US elects a President rather than (gasp!) letting the recipient of the most votes in the gubernatorial election become Governor.  

In case you think I am kidding: Colorado GOP candidate wants to eliminate statewide popular vote so Republicans can win more races | Salon.com

Maybe the thinking is that SCOTUS, having toppled ROE, will in the coming sessions be ready to go after REYNOLDS.  

Comments

  1. Paul D. Van PeltMay 26, 2022 at 8:12 AM

    Bicameral took on a different kind of meaning when Julian Jaynes wrote his thought provoking book, some years ago. His assertion was that early men were afflicted with bicameral minds and those made decision making onerous. So they consulted oracles, the gods; soothsayers and the like. Through some passage of time and evolutionary change, things got better---consciousness, itself improved as breakdown of the bicameral mind emerged. Of course, bicameral, in present day usage, does not fit the definition Jaynes was discussing. It does seem, however, that our legislators have trouble making up their minds.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ChristopherMay 26, 2022 at 9:16 AM

    Yes, I find Jaynes fascinating, though probably more wrong than right.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more