Vote system that elected NY Hispanic could expand

[Ballygrl]

What happened to 1 person 1 vote?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061803766.html

Vote system that elected NY Hispanic could expand

By JIM FITZGERALD
The Associated Press
Friday, June 18, 2010; 6:29 PM

PORT CHESTER, N.Y. -- The court-ordered election that allowed residents of one New York town to flip the lever six times for one candidate - and produced a Hispanic winner - could expand to other towns where minorities complain their voices aren't being heard.

But first, interested parties will want to take a look at the exit surveys.

The unusual election was imposed on Port Chester after a federal judge determined that Hispanics were being treated unfairly.

The 2010 Census is expected to show large increases in Latino populations and lawsuits alleging discrimination are likely to increase, said Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group.

"The country's been changing in a lot of places, with minority growth in exurbs and commuter cities, and there will be a realization that those minorities can't elect candidates of choice," Richie said.

Continued at the link.

[formerlurker]

This is a SCOTUS case -- it needs to get there asap.

[Ballygrl]

This is a SCOTUS case -- it needs to get there asap.

No idea why a case hasn't been filed already.

[Wineslob]

So now Hispanics are 6X more equal than others?

[bkg]

I think we talked about it briefly before, but this is a DIRECT RESULT of the voter's rights act.

[formerlurker]

Looks like SCOTUS is waiting for this case:

Under the Voting Rights Act as it now stands, its Section 5 — the part that requires a number of states and many local governments to get approval in Washington to change their election laws — is due to last until 2032.  But the Supreme Court, in its ruling Monday avoiding the issue of Section 5’s constitutionality, has not guaranteed that it will last that long.

In the next few years, either a local government that tries but fails to get out from under Section 5’s controls, or a state government covered by the law but convinced it should not be any more, would have quite a good chance of renewing the constitutional controversy that the Court did not decide.  The main opinion, in fact, provides what could easily be read as a roadmap for such a future constitutional complaint.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/06/analysis-is-section-5s-future-shaky/

[Ballygrl]

This is 1 reason why it's important to have a right leaning Supreme Court.

[bkg]

This is 1 reason why it's important to have a right leaning Supreme Court.

Ya know... I very much agree that a Constitutionally conservative SCOTUS is the most critical aspect of the Republic...

But...

So few cases that trample our rights are heard these days...