But
we have moved forward in ways meant to include as many people as possible in
our society. Which is a concept that offends some ideologically-minded people
who want everybody who isn’t exactly like them to be excluded.
 |
| Will the high court take us back in time? |
NOW
THEY’RE TURNING to the Supreme Court of the United States, which this week said
it would hear a case later this year that seeks to alter the way that
determines the number of people included in political districts.
Currently,
we undergo the redistricting process every decade, when local government
officials take into consideration changes in population – then redraw political
boundaries to try to make districts as equal in population as is possible.
Of
course, the fact that political people are involved means a sense of
self-interest gets worked into the process. Illinois has Democratic
Party-leaning government because da Dems ruled in 2011 – and still have huge
influence now, as Gov. Bruce Rauner is learning first-hand.
Just
as a place like Texas had its boundaries drawn to maintain as much political
influence as possible in the old white establishment of the state because
Republicans dominate the state.
THERE
PROBABLY IS no perfect way to draw boundaries – not even for those people who
have fantasies about computers drawing arbitrary and neutral boundaries that
ignore partisan political considerations. I’d wonder about the political
leanings of the people programming the computers.
The
nation’s high court is going to be asked to consider another means – the Austin,
Texas-based Project on Fair Representation (which is most certainly unfair)
wants only people registered to vote to be counted.
Which
in a nation whose population is growing due to immigration means many people
with a fully-legitimate reason to be here means there would be significant
numbers of people who wouldn’t be counted.
That
would wind up altering the composition of our government officials, reducing
the numbers of non-Anglo officials in places like Texas and California – which is
the very point that these people are pushing for, and which they’re hoping the
Supreme Court will uphold sometime early next year.
I’LL
BE HONEST – I could almost understand giving non-registered (to vote) people
less say, but only if it were those native-born people who voluntarily choose
not to cast votes. Except those aren’t the people being targeted by such an initiative!
Besides,
the fact is that all people living here are covered by this nation’s laws. We’re
all expected to follow them. We can’t be exempted from them by the fact that we
don’t bother to vote, or that we’re not yet a U.S. citizen.
Nor
should we be.
Which
means we all ought to have some sense that our views are being represented in
this government. Unless we really are determined to head backwards to the days
when women couldn’t vote. Or when those of African origins were considered less
than a full human being for census purposes.
NOBODY
WOULD SERIOUSLY try to undo those changes in our society. At least not so
bluntly. Although I wonder how much of an impact this particular measure would
have on such people.
Also,
I can’t help but think that this measure would merely slow down political
progress. Because many of those non-citizen residents will eventually become
U.S. citizens and take part in the electoral process – unless the ideologues
plan to follow this up with measures restricting voting only to those who will
cast ballots for their preferred candidates!
I
believe that we as a society are better off taking measures that try to include
more individuals. This particular measure is one headed in the absolute wrong
direction – and one that the Supreme Court ought to reject out-of-hand.
But
the court didn’t do that. They decided to hear the case, some time during the
autumn months. Which means there’s always the chance that the ideologues of our
high court will manage to get a majority ruling in their favor.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment