Challenge to the Concept of “One Person, One Vote” …

~ Boohunney

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case if states should draw voting districts based on eligible voters, instead of total populations.

The case — Evenwel v. Abbott — stems from the 2013 redistricting of 31 seats in the Texas Senate, which was based on 2010 census population figures alone. Texas voters Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger sued then-Texas Governor Rick Perry and then-Texas Secretary of State Nandita Berry for allegedly violating the “one-person, one-vote” principle of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by not dividing districts in a manner that equalized both total population and voter population.

This principle requires that, “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.”

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state, which argued that there was no legal basis for Evenwel and Pfenninger’s claims that the new election districts were unconstitutional.

Why is this being heard and possible consequences if the SCOTUS sides with Evenwel and Pfenninger’s claims…

A 1964 Supreme Court decision, Reynolds v. Sims, ruled that voting districts must contain very close to the same number of people. But the court did not say which people count.

Almost all state and local governments draw districts based on total population. If people who were ineligible to vote were evenly distributed, the difference between counting all people or counting only eligible voters would not matter. But demographic patterns vary widely.

If the challengers succeed, the practical consequences would be enormous, Joseph R. Fishkin, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin wrote in 2012 in The Yale Law Journal.

It would, he said, “shift power markedly at every level, away from cities and neighborhoods with many immigrants and many children and toward the older, whiter, more exclusively native-born areas in which a higher proportion of the total population consists of eligible voters.”

That sounds like a bit more of the erosion of representation of the people. Election Finance Laws, the Voting Rights Amendment, voter ID laws and the list goes on. I am just wondering where these Texas voters got this great idea…

The organization behind the challenge, the Project on Fair Representation, also was the brainchild of other major Supreme Court cases challenging minority preferences. Among them: Fisher v. University of Texas, challenging the use of affirmative action policies in college admissions, and Shelby County, Ala., v. Holder, challenging a major section of the Voting Rights Act.

The challengers were backed by a half-dozen conservative and libertarian groups, an unusually large number for a case that had yet to be granted by the high court. But it appears they were persuasive.

I guess the “real constituency” is dying out and needs a boost of power.

Evenwel v. Abbott will be heard by the SCOTUS in the fall.

Steppin’ out

~ susie

There’s a long story involving me in a club wearing heels, walking up and down dozens of steps while drunk, and being absolutely furious at my date while Joe Jackson performed live, but honestly, I’d rather you just used your imagination:

https://youtu.be/RBJUHvQPFTI

Amie

~ susie

I must have heard every cover band in the world play this in the 80s, but I still love it. Pure Prairie League:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4xp2lgiAjY&list=RD-YP3pIPp8P8&index=7

Restricting teen abortion in Texas…

~ Boohunney ~ 2 Comments

Think Progress:

Minors in Texas are required to obtain parental consent before getting an abortion. It is possible, however, for a small number of young women — less than 300 per year — to bypass this requirement through the court system. Under Texas law, judges can allow minors to obtain an abortion under limited circumstances, including situations where notifying a parent could “lead to sexual, physical, or emotional abuse.” The judicial bypass is difficult to obtain because it was written by conservatives who oppose abortion rights.

The Texas Senate spent Memorial Day further restricting abortion access for these teenage girls.

The bill in question, HB 3994, removes the specific provision that allows for judicial bypass when “notifying their parents could lead to physical, sexual or emotional abuse.” The sponsor of the bill, Charles Perry, says abuse issues could be brought up under another section of the bypass statute that allows for a judge to grant an abortion without parental consent if it’s in minor’s “best interest.” The change does appear to provide judges with additional leeway to deny an abortion even if seeking parental notification would result or likely result in abuse.

But, of course, this is to help minor women …

Republican sponsor Charles Perry deflected a dozen amendments from Democrats that would have loosened the restrictions. Perry said the significant changes to the so-called judicial bypass process are meant to clarify judicial issues and protect young women.

“This is, No. 1, for the minor’s benefit,” he said.

Opponents say the bill stifles the process established in 1999 that allows about 300 pregnant teenagers in Texas to terminate their pregnancy in extreme situations every year. It also unfairly harms young women when they most need help, opponents say.

“Is one of your goals to reduce abortions?” Democratic Sen. Kirk Watson asked Perry.

No, the Lubbock Republican replied.

But immediately after the vote, anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life posted on Twitter, “Another #ProLife victory in the State Senate.”

I know this has become cliche as of late, but, “I can’t believe I still have to protest this shit.”

About your sunscreen …

~ Boohunney

It is outdoor and beach time, again, and sunscreen season, too. While, I do not “sunbathe” anymore like when I was in my 20’s, I do stay exposed to the Sun’s rays doing outdoor activities. At the start of the season I get my sun gear out of the closet: wide brimmed hats, sun protective clothing, my beach umbrella and prescription sunglasses. I do use sunscreen as well, because without it in the brutal Southern Sun, I’d get pretty crispy quick.

I thought I knew how to use sunscreen, but, I came across this and there were a few things I didn’t know.

You’ve been using the same bottle for the past three summers.

When it comes to sunscreen, expiration dates really do matter. The active ingredients in sunscreen can deteriorate over time, Garner says, which means the protection won’t be as effective. What’s more, an open bottle is more likely to become contaminated with germs over time, as the preservatives meant to prevent that can also lose their efficacy.

I guess I need to check the dates on the collection of bottles I have. I am sure a few need to get tossed out.

You count on the SPF in your makeup to do the trick.

A two-in-one foundation/sunscreen certainly seems handy, but that doesn’t mean it works. Part of the problem is quantity: a dab of foundation isn’t the same as the amount of sunscreen you’d slather on your face.

I don’t wear makeup that often, but, this is good to know and pass along to others.

You count on waterproof sunscreen when you’re swimming.

Turns out, there isn’t such a thing as “waterproof” sunscreen. In fact, a relatively recent iteration of FDA rules no longer even allows the word to be used on sunscreen bottles (along with “sweat-proof” or “sunblock”). Instead, based on testing, they can claim to be “water resistant” for either 40 or 80 minutes. After that? Reapply, reapply, reapply. “I can’t tell you how many patients come in and say, ‘But I put my sunscreen on,'” Garner says. “[But] did you put it back on?”

I did know, this, but, for many this is not known. This especially important for the kids.

If you are heading out this summer, do check out the tips on sunscreen. Nothing is more of a recreational or vacation downer than a sunburn.