SCOTUS unanimously upholds one person, one vote

The U. S. Supreme Court released a decision in a voting rights case that originated in Texas.   There was some worry, because the plaintiffs were the same as in the Texas case that ended up gutting a portion of the Voting Rights Act.   In that case, the requirement for prior review by the Department of Justice of any change in certain states' laws regulating voting was eliminmated by SCOTUS.

But this was a different outcome -- by an unanimous 8-0 decision, SCOTUS preserves the concept that every resident counts in drawing up congressional districts.   The plaintiffs wanted to change it so that only eligible voters count. By eliminating children, college students who havn't registered, poor people without drivers licenses or other photo ID, and others who tend not to be part of the voter pool -- you reduce the Democratic-leaning numbers of people who have to be counted in drawing congressional districts.

Therefore, states with larger immigrant (especially Hispanic) populations would lose some of their congressional seats;  more rural states would gain congressional seats.   That is what the fight was about.  The obvious political implication is that it favors conservatives over liberals, rural areas over urban areas, demographics with fewer children over those with more children.   And it especially was aimed at reducing the impact of Hispanics, who tend to have larger numbers of children.

It was all part of Republican relentless efforts to win by suppressing the number of voters where those voters are more likely to vote Democraat.   They already gained a large degree of control by winning state legislature majorities, which gave them control over redistrictring lines in most states that let the legislature draw the congressional district lines that favor them.

Other parts of that plan include the voter ID laws, the reductions in early voting times and places, and other ways they make it more difficult to register and to vote.

What Republicans have not done -- going sharply against their own party's analysis of what they needed to do following Mitt Romney's loss -- is to become more inclusive and broaden their appeal to minorities.   Instead, they have gone the other direction, trying to close borders, diminish immigration, alienate minorities and, with this case, reduce their weight in determining congressional representation.

This may win them control of state governments.  It does not win them presidential elections.    And this time it didn't even get any help for them from the Supreme Court.  Even Clarence Thomas voted against them.

But it is a strategy for them.   If they can't win the presidency, they will do the next best thing:   win at the state level, redraw congressional districts and get control of congress;   then be an obstructionist opposition party. 

Ralph

Addendum:   Frankly, the Democratic Party has failed in the opposition direction.  By failing to have a 50 state strategy for down ballot offices, and instead concentrating on the presidential race every four years, they have conceded  state governments and at least the House to the Republicans.