More thoughts on the VRA

[jimrtex]

Section allows Congress to enforce section #1, which reads

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know that you (and many others) would like a narrow reading of the text of Amend XV Sect 1 to refer to only the act of voting. Whether anyone likes it or not, politicians have shown since the earliest years of the republic that they could very effectively make that act of voting meaningless for specific groups of individuals by diluting their voting strength through the drawing of districts. Elbridge Gerry gave us the gerrymander doing this to his political opponents.

In the case of race, southern states were very effective at negating black votes long after the Civil War by fracturing communities to dilute their power through racial gerrymandering. Congress and the courts both agreed that this is just as much an abridgement of the right to vote as a poll tax. So by the power conferred by the fifteenth amendment, this the law.
e inapplicable throughout the country. The data shows that such a day is not yet here.

Fundamental to citizenship is the right of self-identity and self-expression.  Race-based classification of individuals deprives them of their self-identity and self-expression, and effectively their citizenship.

"citizen" is reduced to "person born in the United States or naturalized" and the granting of any rights a matter of law by the government.

I ask you once again.  What if the Congress wished to actually enforce the 14th Amendment, and 2 U.S.C. § 6, how would you calculate the number of citizens whose right to vote was abridged?   What if Congress decided to levy civil fines based on the abridgement of the right to vote, and distribute the money to the supposed victims.  How would you determine who and how many were victimized?

[jimrtex]

Fundamental to citizenship is the right of self-identity and self-expression.  Race-based classification of individuals deprives them of their self-identity and self-expression, and effectively their citizenship.

That argument does not seem to pertain to race-based self-classification in any way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ask the question in the Census, I suppose.

Prior to the 1870 Census, Congress considered asking that question on the census, but didn't come to agreement.  A government official asked for local census takers to make inquiries as to the number of disenfranchised voters, which had spotty results, with some areas carefully reporting the number of illiterates and feeble-minded and other areas reporting at all.

When Congress was considering the apportionment in 1871/2, some representatives did the actual calculation and determined that it would have made no difference.  Northern representatives were well aware of the effect of the removal of the 3/5 rule, and were disappointed that Southern states hadn't disenfranchised more voters.  But they did stick the apportionment clause of the 14th Amendment into statute, where it remains today.

There were actually two apportionment bills after the 1870 Census.  The second added a few representatives so no state lost representatives, but is not supportable on the basis of the actual population.

When the 14th Amendment was being considered, it was supposed to be based on voters (males over 18) but the New England states thought they would lose seats, because they had more children and relatively more women.  People moving West were more likely to be men (multiple sons, or whose father was still living and owning the family farm in the East).  So they switched to the rather awkward proportionality version.

Had they gone with the original version, it would be considered quite normal to ask citizenship status.

[jimrtex]

  Northern representatives were well aware of the effect of the removal of the 3/5 rule, and were disappointed that Southern states hadn't disenfranchised more voters. 

Do you have any quotes from the historical record for that? I believe you, it would be interesting to read them.

I read through a lot of the debate on the 1872 apportionment bill, but didn't come across anything.

It may have been in the debate on the 14th Amendment, where there was concern that the losing side in the Civil War would gain additional political power.