Home « Forum « Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Thread Break - New States in the USA Union

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

In another thread discussion of seceding from the union has covered a lot of ground, up to and including the US Supreme Court 1869 case of Texas vs White which established that a state cannot unilaterally secede from the union.

However the US Constitution in Article 4 states:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The process used to date has been for the new states to apply to join the union, and then Congress votes on accepting them or not. Where a new state is created from an old state (i.e. a state splits into two or more) then the original state has to approve the new borders and the US Congress has to confirm the new borders, as happened with Kentucky and Tennessee, and a few others cut from original states.

That raises the question, in my mind, as to what happens if an existing state approves the creation of a new state from within its borders, has the border changes approved by the state and Congress but the new state doesn't apply to join the union. Since it hasn't app;lied and been accepted as a new state, would it simply become a new territory under direct federal control until it applies and is accepted as a state?

typo edit

Switch Blayde

@Ernest Bywater

Where a new state is created from an old state


California wants to become 3 states to get 3 times as many Senate seats.

When I was young living in NYC, upstate NY wanted to become a separate state because they said the massive number of people in NYC didn't represent their beliefs.

Replies:   REP  Centaur
Switch Blayde

@Ernest Bywater

approved by the state and Congress but the new state doesn't apply to join the union.


Then Congress wouldn't approve it to begin with.

Replies:   PotomacBob
REP

@Switch Blayde

California wants to become 3 states to get 3 times as many Senate seats.


That would happen. However the primary emphasis behind the effort is separate state governments would allow citizens of the respective state's interests to be better represented.

Did you see the proposal to divide California into 6 states?

Replies:   seanski1969
sunkuwan

You have to look behind the scenes on who is spearheading the "dividing California" discussion, how it is broken up and what the citizens normally vote for.

The last "3 states" proposal would lead to 2 red states and 1 blue state
and the last "6 states" proposal would lead to 4 red states, 1 blue state and 1 swing state. The borders would always be drawn to include the most blue voters into the 1 state and the other borders to always include a historically red voting majority.
If the swing state would vote red, nearly 60% of the population of California would have voted blue while only getting 16,7% representation.
Gerrymandering is fucked up, the US voting system is fucked up.

PrincelyGuy

Did you see the proposal to divide California into 6 states?


The six state proposal died several years ago. The problem with the three state proposal is that Northern California does not want San Francisco. Los Angeles just wants the water from Northern California and the Sierra Nevada watersheds Plus they get SillyCon Valley. The Central Valley grows a lot of different crops, but in general is a lot poorer than most of the rest of the state due to numerous factors.

I want to leave this place really bad, but aging parents still need my assistance. Plus, what states really want anyone from California moving to them? Even though my gun safe is overflowing and I need to purchase another one.

seanski1969

@REP

However the primary emphasis behind the effort is separate state governments would allow citizens of the respective state's interests to be better represented.


Actually as an interested Californian, the primary emphasis on all the proposed divided Californias is that the State is by far a Democratic stronghold. All proposed divisions have been pushed by libertarian or republican individuals who are unhappy with the States politics. So they have championed various measures to divide the State. Does not anyone remember the "State of Jefferson" movement a few years back to seperate most of the Northern California (rural) counties and the southern (rural) counties of Oregon into one new state? All these counties complain about how high their taxes are and they are providing benefits to illegals and the big cities. Yet, when looking at the distribution of tax dollars per capita they are the highest beneficiaries. Just another strategy of the Republican Party that cries it is "taxed too high" and "welfare is greater in cities" when the facts dispute that on per capita basis the rural communities receive a disapportably higher tax revenue than their residents provide.

Replies:   REP
Switch Blayde

@sunkuwan

nearly 60% of the population of California would have voted blue while only getting 16,7% representation.


If I remember (I was young) that was the situation in NY. The conservative people upstate had no say because NYC's large liberal population decided the voting outcome for the whole state.

Switch Blayde

@PrincelyGuy

Plus, what states really want anyone from California moving to them?


We get a lot of Californians in my retirement community in Arizona. Some still have homes in Calif and are part-time here. What amazes me is how many are very right-wing. I always thought of Calif to be liberal. Californians moving here jack up the home prices.

Replies:   PrincelyGuy  Jim S
PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

That provision of the Constitution came about because of what was then called the "Far West." The counties of colonial North Carolina just west of the Appalachian Mountains felt they were paying taxes to North Carolina but getting no services. They decided to form their own state. They announced their secession from North Carolina and formed a new state called "Franklin," which occupied a small portion of what now is Tennessee. The new state was named after one of our founding fathers. They applied for statehood, it was considered by Congress, and failed by one vote. Later, an armed group of men from Virginia, led, IIRC, a Colonel Taylor, defeated the forces of Franklin in the foothills of the Smokies, and the State of Franklin ceased to exist.
After the later adoption of the U.S. Constitution, when the federal government got more taxing authority (For our War of Independence, each state, not the feds, decide how much it contributed to the war effort), and agreed with Virginia and North Carolina to take over their war debts in exchange for those states giving up claim to all their lands west of the ridge of the Appalachians. That was named the Southwest Territory (informally), officially called something like the U.S. Territory South of the River Ohio. From the Southwest Territory was carved out the states of Kentucky and Tennessee, and was approved by the new legislatures and the states of Virginia and North Carolina. The new states were formed in such a way that they complied with the new provision of the constitution.
That provision of the constitution was written to prevent another occurrence like that of what is today called "The Lost State of Franklin," where one portion of the state decides to split off from another part. There have been many efforts over the year to split states apart. Texas officials often claim that, according to their agreement they have the right to divide Texas into five states. But if you read the documents carefully, such a declaration is subject to the approval of Congress.
I remember reading a news story in 1975, that something along the lines of "If all the portions of states that want to be independent of their mother states, and if all of them were to admitted this year, in our Bi-Centennial Year (1976), we would have 76 states."

Replies:   Switch Blayde
PotomacBob

@sunkuwan

I read a news story the other day, based on a Census Bureau study, that predicted within a couple of decades, 70 percent of the American population will live in just 15 states.
The story didn't say so, but, if you think about it, what that means is that 30 percent of the U.S population would have 70 percent of the U.S. Senators. If the present tendency of Democrats to be limited to the big cities and Republicans to control the rural areas, things bode well for the GOP in future decades. they don't have to manipulate anything for that to happen.

Replies:   sunkuwan  Harold Wilson
PotomacBob

@Switch Blayde

ANd I think the implications of that are that the old state, undivided, would continue as was.

PotomacBob

@PrincelyGuy

I want to leave this place really bad


And no longer live in paradise?

Replies:   PrincelyGuy
PrincelyGuy

@Switch Blayde

I always thought of Calif to be liberal.


The large population centers like the Bay Area and Los Angeles are definitely blue. The farming parts are mostly red. My personal opinion is that if California splits into 3 parts, it would most likely be two blue and one red. Good possibility of three blue. The one part I am unsure of is the San Diego area. Would it be blue or red? LA and San Jose would push one state blue. San Francisco and Oakland would push Northern California blue. I have not studied the partisanship of the different cities, so it just an opinion.

Jim S

@Switch Blayde

We get a lot of Californians in my retirement community in Arizona. Some still have homes in Calif and are part-time here. What amazes me is how many are very right-wing. I always thought of Calif to be liberal. Californians moving here jack up the home prices.


Current thought, as far as I can tell, has conservative Californians leaving for both Las Vegas and Texas. I don't know how true it is. I'm not sure how thoroughly that migration has been studied.

I don't think California would ever agree to split anyhow and that is one necessary condition. It would end up expanding conservative's power as the two red states along would end up having a huge effect on everything from Supreme Court confirmations to Presidential elections due to it's effect on the Electoral College. I don't see Pelosi et al and her ilk ever permitting that to happen.

And California isn't the only state that looks to split. I live in Michigan and there appears to be a movement in the Upper Peninsula to form a state named Superior. Been going on for 20 years or so. Not very strongly though.

Replies:   Harold Wilson
PrincelyGuy

@PotomacBob

And no longer live in paradise?


Okay, so extremely high taxes. Highest gas prices of all 50 states. Can no longer buy ammo from the Internet. Soon going to need a special license just to buy it from a store. Temperatures over 100 for the last 20 some days. Fires up and down the state. Where in that list do you find paradise? As stated earlier, if not for family and the fact that the wife is still working, I would be out of here. Where? Not sure. Maybe the lower parts of Utah. Maybe Arizona. Maybe Texas. Definitely not anywhere they get heavy snow.

Switch Blayde

@PotomacBob

Very interesting. Thanks.

Of course no one asked the American Indians.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@PrincelyGuy

I forgot that what I think of as joking doesn't come across that way in writing. And I don't know how to use those little icon thingies that show we were joking. My apologies for causing you to take me seriously.

Replies:   REP  PrincelyGuy
PotomacBob

@Switch Blayde

We (the invading hordes) asked some of them, and signed treaties with them. Of course we unilaterally broke most of those same treaties, then came up with the pejorative nickname "Indian giver," essentially blaming the Indians for what we did to them. Of course, it would be politically incorrect to point out on this site that white men aren't always honorable.

REP

@seanski1969

If you look at any proposed activity, you will find many motives.

The reason I mentioned is the reason given publically. Your reasons are also valid.

REP

@PotomacBob

Many of us use :) or other keyboard characters to indicate we aren't being totally serious. That includes the time we are being only partly serious.

PrincelyGuy

@PotomacBob

And I apologize to you for coming back so strongly. We really need a sarcasm tag. I forget what emoji that is. All I remember is :) :O and :P

StarFleet Carl
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


That raises the question, in my mind, as to what happens if an existing state approves the creation of a new state from within its borders, has the border changes approved by the state and Congress but the new state doesn't apply to join the union. Since it hasn't app;lied and been accepted as a new state, would it simply become a new territory under direct federal control until it applies and is accepted as a state?


That couldn't actually happen, because the approval to split the state in the first place would require it to join the United States. That's under Section 3 of the Constitution.

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.


Now, where this does get interesting is that if California DID actually manage to split itself ... which would be simply to 'load' things in the Senate for liberals, guess what? One MINOR detail they forget from 1845 ...

Under the terms of annexation, Texas can divide itself into FIVE states.

Under the terms, Texas would keep both its public lands and its public debt, it would have the power to divide into four additional states "of convenient size" in the future if it so desired, and it would deliver all military, postal, and customs facilities and authority to the United States government. Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance passed by the Republic of Texas' Annexation Convention gave Texas the right to secede.


Texas State Library Reference

Replies:   REP
REP
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl

And I seem to remember, those terms also give Texas the right to secede from the Union.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
richardshagrin

@PrincelyGuy

Where in that list do you find paradise?

You are more likely to find a pair of dice in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Centaur

@Switch Blayde

California wants to become 3 states to get 3 times as many Senate seats.


This before or after it slides into the Pacific?

Replies:   Dominions Son
Ernest Bywater

@REP

And I seem to remember, those terms also give Texas the right to secede from the Union.


On reading the exact wording of the US Joint Resolution at:

www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html

it does not allow the state of Texas to leave the union. What it does allow for is for the state of Texas to cede part of the new state to the US Government for the US government to do with as it wishes. The actual wording is (with bold of the key part by me):

Be it resolved, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next appointment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the governments of Texas and the United States: And that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of Congress, as the President may direct.

However, that section is not in the Ordinance approved by the people of Texas as shown at:

www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/4july1845.html

Thus Texas can, with the approval of Congress, split into a five states with four of them being in the designated areas listed below, but the ceding of land isn't part of what the Texans approved.

New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, ...

How much of that they can still split off into new states is disputable as the land that initially formed the state of Texas in 1845 is shown in a map at:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wpdms_republic_of_texas.svg

Please note the map has an overlay of the modern USA on it and part of what was then Western Texas is now part of the states of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. While the lands that went to Wyoming, Kansas, and Colorado are north of the Missouri Compromise Line the lands transferred to be part of New Mexico and Oklahoma are within the stated area and thus could count as 2 of the new states being split out of Texas.

sunkuwan

@PotomacBob

At that point the US HAS to implement a population-based voting system.

Dominions Son

@Centaur

This before or after it slides into the Pacific?


California isn't going to slide into the Pacific. This comment is mostly made in regards to the San Andreas fault and the earthquakes it generates.

The problem is two fold.

1. Less than 10% of California is west of the fault line.

2. The San Andreas fault is a side-slip fault, not a subduction or spreading fault. The area west of the fault is moving North west, not west. It won't slide into the Pacific, eventually (millions of years from now) it will be part of Alaska.

Dominions Son

@sunkuwan

At that point the US HAS to implement a population-based voting system.


Can't happen without a constitutional amendment, which has to be approved by 2/3rds (34 out of 50) of the states (not 2/3rds of the people.).

At the point that 15 states have 70% of the population, good luck finding 19 of the 35 with just 30% of the population willing to ratify that amendment.

Ernest Bywater

@sunkuwan

At that point the US HAS to implement a population-based voting system.


Voter identification with proof of citizenship will have to happen before that even gets a decent discussion, and we all know how likely voter ID is to happen.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  StarFleet Carl
Not_a_ID

@Ernest Bywater

Voter identification with proof of citizenship will have to happen before that even gets a decent discussion, and we all know how likely voter ID is to happen.


Maybe in another 40 years. Honestly I think technology is going to (inadvertently) lead to that outcome. 20 years is possible, don't know about probable however.

But yeah, I don't see the small population states giving up their power in the senate(or EC).

Replies:   sunkuwan  Ernest Bywater
sunkuwan

@Not_a_ID

Other nations have universal Voter registries for decades.
Everyone who has a legal status as a citizen has the right to vote he/she just has to turn up at the booth with their national ID card. You also get a reminder/invitation a month or two before the vote.

Replies:   Keet  Not_a_ID  Switch Blayde
Keet
Updated:

@sunkuwan

Other nations have universal Voter registries for decades.
Everyone who has a legal status as a citizen has the right to vote he/she just has to turn up at the booth with their national ID card. You also get a reminder/invitation a month or two before the vote.

It's quite common. Here we get a voter pass about a month before elections. We go to the voting booth, hand over the pass and show an id that compares to the id on the voter pass. The only thing they can register is the fact that you voted, not what you voted because that comes after. After handing over the voter pass and the verification you get a blank voting form, you enter a shielded booth, mark your vote, fold the form closed, and dump it in a closed bin.
Of course only registered citizens get a voting pass.
It's how every election should have the voting regulated.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@sunkuwan


Other nations have universal Voter registries for decades.

Everyone who has a legal status as a citizen has the right to vote he/she just has to turn up at the booth with their national ID card. You also get a reminder/invitation a month or two before the vote.


I know that. The politics of it in the U.S. However makes it something that is likely to remain unsolved for at least "another generation"(roughly 20 years) as we basically have to wait for most of the Baby Boomers to die off, and even then that may not be enough..

More likely in my view is that technology(in particular currency) is going to reach a point where people are going to have a "Unique ID" which is easily accessible as a matter of simply living. That identifier, whatever form it takes(some form of RFID seems likely) is going to become a defacto "ID Card" and will become the Voter ID solution.

Replies:   Keet  REP
Keet

@Not_a_ID

More likely in my view is that technology(in particular currency) is going to reach a point where people are going to have a "Unique ID" which is easily accessible as a matter of simply living.

I get a cold shiver down the spine just thinking about that. It's the three-letter-agencies wet dream.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Ernest Bywater

@Not_a_ID

Honestly I think technology is going to (inadvertently) lead to that outcome.


There's recognition software available that the law enforcement people in many countries use in places like airports etc. to identify wanted people. All they needs is a couple of good images of the person and the system will ID them. I've seen the same systems used as entry control in restricted areas; the software matches the image from the entry camera to their database and it opens the door for those with the right approvals.

The tech is there to ID and pick out wanted people who aren't allowed to vote as they enter the voting place, but can you image the outrage some people in the US would scream about if this was introduced. It could also be used to only allow entry for those in the citizenship database, but that would get a bigger complaint.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Keet


I get a cold shiver down the spine just thinking about that. It's the three-letter-agencies wet dream.


THAT also is a large part of why it will be a generational transition. The technophobes have to cease being a significant portion of the population, which means the Baby Boomers are "out" and even GenX is questionable(hence 40 years), but once it is "The Millennial Generation" turning 60(to 70)....

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Not_a_ID

The technophobes have to cease being a significant portion of the population,

It has nothing to do with technophobes. It's about common sense and a natural need for people to have a minimum amount of privacy.

Replies:   seanski1969
seanski1969

@Keet

All this talk about IDs and having recognition software for all the people in the US and all I hear is some Nazi saying
"SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!".

Kinda crazy if you ask me that the party which is supposedly so fond of individual freedoms wants to suddenly remove them. Why do I have to show you my papers? I just want to live free but you keep placing your personal needs above mine.

Keet

@seanski1969

Kinda crazy if you ask me that the party which is supposedly so fond of individual freedoms wants to suddenly remove them. Why do I have to show you my papers? I just want to live free but you keep placing your personal needs above mine.

You're right. It's all those people calling for "safety" and "protection" that caused the "need" for ID's. Okay, if you want to vote I can understand that need but not in every day life.

Switch Blayde

@sunkuwan

Other nations have universal Voter registries for decades.
Everyone who has a legal status as a citizen


The second line describes why so many people in the U.S. are against the universal voter id. I guess the illegals have a powerful lobby group.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Switch Blayde

@seanski1969

Why do I have to show you my papers?


Didn't a cop ever pull you over and ask to see your driver's license? Don't you have to show your passport when entering the U.S.? The list goes on.

I just renewed my drivers license. There's a new id coming that will be required to fly within the U.S. in 2020. My state allows that to be used as a drivers license so that's what I got.

Ernest Bywater

@seanski1969

Why do I have to show you my papers? I just want to live free but you keep placing your personal needs above mine.


Most countries around the world require people to carry their ID documents with them at all times. I can see, and agree with, the need to produce them to be able to receive certain services and a few other situations such as getting welfare benefits and for voting in elections. However, you shouldn't need to show ID just to walk down a normal street, nor should you need a lot of rules just to live in the house you bought as long as you aren't harming or annoying others.

Sadly, there are too many politicians who want to be able to tell you what to do and they pass laws telling what words you can use to address other people as well as laws about what you can and can't have on your house. Some of these people are at the lowest local levels, county, city, state, and federal level. Some make up rules about not being able to fly the nation's flag except on a few specific national holidays - check YouTube for HOA's fining people for displaying flags. Some about what type of straws you can use. Most of those such laws are garbage, but there should be solid checks for proving the right to vote and the right to receive government money and other handouts.

Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

I guess the illegals have a powerful lobby group.


It's not that so much as certain politicians wanting to enable the illegals to vote for them and put them in office or keep them in office.

REP
Updated:

@Not_a_ID


people are going to have a "Unique ID"


The initial step has already happened. The Federal government created the Real ID Act of 2018, which takes force in 2020.

The act primarily affects travelers and requires a government approved ID to be shown to pass through the TSA checkpoints at airports.

ETA: When enforcement begins, a compliant ID is necessary to enter any federal facility that requires ID including TSA checkpoints, federal prisons, military bases, and other secure facilities.

Replies:   rustyken  Centaur
rustyken

@REP

ETA: When enforcement begins, a compliant ID is necessary to enter any federal facility that requires ID including TSA checkpoints, federal prisons, military bases, and other secure facilities.


So does that mean I won't be able to use my passport as a travel document?

Replies:   PrincelyGuy  REP
PrincelyGuy

@rustyken

So does that mean I won't be able to use my passport as a travel document?


Nope. If you have a non-compliant drivers license like California issues, then you will need to show a passport or other valid form of identification.

BTW, California will only issue a REAL ID compliant drivers license only to those who want one and can provide valid documentation as determined by the Feds. So if you cannot prove citizenship, your options for traveling and entering federal buildings will be extremely limited.

PrincelyGuy

https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqs

This web site has more information on the Real ID.

sunkuwan

And that's a better system? Where your future is decided by a state with 15.000 people?

This will end in another civil war sometimes.

Replies:   PrincelyGuy
PrincelyGuy

@sunkuwan

And that's a better system? Where your future is decided by a state with 15.000 people?


Huh???

Replies:   sunkuwan
sunkuwan

@PrincelyGuy

15.000 was exaggerated but Wyoming, the least populated state (half a million people) has the same deciding power as California with 40 Million.

PrincelyGuy

@sunkuwan

Sounds fair to me. If it is good enough for Wyoming, then it should be good enough for California.

I is a Red in the State of Blue.

Centaur
Updated:

@REP

When enforcement begins, a compliant ID is necessary to enter any federal facility that requires ID including TSA checkpoints, federal prisons, military bases, and other secure facilities.


you have to show ID anyway to get into any of those places or fly. to fly you have to show ID and a plane ticket(for that day). so it's a law that is already in existence.

EDIT:

well looking at the DHS web site I see TN is compliant. so I never had problems before.

Freedom/security can't have both, have to sacrifice something for the other.

Replies:   REP
REP
Updated:

@rustyken

I don't know all the details. A passport was one of the documents that could be used to get a Real ID.

ETA: it can also be used to get through the TSA checkpoint.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
REP

@Centaur

In 2020, your standard drivers license and some of the other standard forms of ID will not be acceptable for the cited purposes. Check the following for how CA is impacted and the Act affects all states, so they will probably be impacted in a similar fashion.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/realid

Replies:   PotomacBob
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@REP


ETA: it can also be used to get through the TSA checkpoint.


Indeed, if you don't mind packing it around, a passport can be used in lieu of Real ID, as you have to prove citizenship/legal status in order to obtain it.

StarFleet Carl

@Ernest Bywater

we all know how likely voter ID is to happen.


Um, you know that it's already GONE to the Supreme Court that a state CAN require you to show valid state issued ID before allowing you to cast a ballot, right? And such a law is both valid AND Constitutional.

Crawford v Marion County Election Board, 2008

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl


Um, you know that it's already GONE to the Supreme Court that a state CAN require you to show valid state issued ID before allowing you to cast a ballot, right? And such a law is both valid AND Constitutional.


The emphasis her is the word CAN, because in some states the governments refuse to do so. When the can is replaced with a must, then you have a system that can be cleaned up and be effective.

edit to fix typo and add the word governments.

Jim S

@sunkuwan

15.000 was exaggerated but Wyoming, the least populated state (half a million people) has the same deciding power as California with 40 Million.


The same deciding power for what? Same deciding power implies equal weight. Is that what you mean?

Wheezer

Conservatives are not the only ones wanting to redefine the US map. Quite a few people on the Liberal/Progressive (and even some moderates) side of the political spectrum would love to see all three of the western coast states secede and form a new independent country with real, fair majority democracy instead of the current sham. Admittedly, nowhere near enough to make it happen.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Wheezer

Conservatives are not the only ones wanting to redefine the US map. Quite a few people on the Liberal/Progressive (and even some moderates) side of the political spectrum would love to see all three of the western coast states secede and form a new independent country with real, fair majority democracy instead of the current sham. Admittedly, nowhere near enough to make it happen.


Oregon and Washington also both have large cadres of people who'd like to split their respective states right around the Cascades.

StarFleet Carl

@sunkuwan

15.000 was exaggerated but Wyoming, the least populated state (half a million people) has the same deciding power as California with 40 Million.


And that's why we have Congress. In the Senate, ALL states are supposed to be equal, thus two Senators per state. In the House of Representatives (which is wrongly called Congress by the media - Congress is the House AND the Senate), the number of Representatives is apportioned to each state depending upon the population of each state, with a minimum of one Representative per state. And the numbers of Representatives from each state CAN change if the population of the nation shifts.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@StarFleet Carl

And the numbers of Representatives from each state CAN change if the population of the nation shifts.

Or by resolution passed by the House of Representatives, or by admitting a new state into the Union and seating the representative before the next reallocation of seats in the House.

Nothing in the Constitution madates 435 representatives, that's just a number the House decided upon about 100 years ago and hasn't changed since. It could have 50 seats just as easily as it could have 50,000 seats in it(although they'd need a new chamber to meet in under that scenario).

The only number they absolutely cannot go below is 50 seats, as each state is entitled to at least one seat.

Replies:   Jim S  richardshagrin
Jim S

@Not_a_ID

The only number they absolutely cannot go below is 50 seats, as each state is entitled to at least one seat.

Something that can only happen if there is equal population in all 50 states. I'd just love to see 6,440,000 end up moving to Rhode Island (necessary for that to happen). :)

Replies:   StarFleet Carl  Not_a_ID
StarFleet Carl

@Jim S

I'd just love to see 6,440,000 end up moving to Rhode Island


It's 1212 square miles. There's room.

Oklahoma and Pottawatomie County, which are only a portion of the greater OKC metro area, are 1,500 square miles combined.

richardshagrin

@Not_a_ID

50 seats


Although they do not get to vote on the record, there are "representatives" from several territories who can speak and sit in the House, for example Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. So 50 seats are not enough for all the representatives, even if each state only had one.

PotomacBob

@REP

In 2020, your standard drivers license and some of the other standard forms of ID will not be acceptable for the cited purpose


Aren't most states making their drivers' licenses compliant by the deadline. I know some states are switching this year and next.

Replies:   REP  Ernest Bywater
Not_a_ID

@Jim S

Something that can only happen if there is equal population in all 50 states. I'd just love to see 6,440,000 end up moving to Rhode Island (necessary for that to happen). :)


Really? Where does it say anything about it being equally representative? If that was true, I don't think they'd be able to keep it locked in at 435 Representatives. They'd either need to increase or decrease the number of seats "to keep it equal" and just how "equal" does "equal" need to be, as exact population matches(or exactly proportional) are hard to make happen across 50 political entities.

As I recall it just implied that any amount of seats allocated beyond the stipulated minimum of 1 per state must be allocated equally. If they never go beyond 1 per state then they have faithfully apportioned the remaining 0 available seats.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Jim S
REP

@PotomacBob

From what I've read about 19 states are already compliant. CA plans to be compliant by 2020.

It sounds as if most people will get Real ID drivers license, some will get Real ID identification cards, and there is mention of people not getting Real ID cards. It sounds as if it is mandatory for states to implement the system, but it is not mandatory for citizens to get cards.

There is mention of these ID being more expensive so license fees will go up. I wonder if you can get a non-Real ID drivers license???

Dominions Son
Updated:

@Not_a_ID


Really? Where does it say anything about it being equally representative?


https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i

US Constitution, Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 3.


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.


Note: "three fifths of all other Persons." was effectively eliminated by the 13th Amendment and Indians are now taxed.

After a certain point, Congress got the power to fix the size of the House of Representatives, so the population numbers for each district float, but all House of Representatives districts are around the same population, except for the House districts for states that only get one representative which is only 7 out of the 50 states.

There will be some variance in the size of Representative districts between states, but excluding the states that only get one Representative, the variance should be fairly small.

Adjusting things so only 1 state (out of the existing 50) gets only one Representative (and thus equalizing the size of all house districts nationally) would require increasing the size of the House of Representatives from the current 435 to 555

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

Adjusting things so only 1 state (out of the existing 50) gets only one Representative (and thus equalizing the size of all house districts nationally) would require increasing the size of the House of Representatives from the current 435 to 555


And you make my point for me. Representation as it stands is not being done equally. What they ARE doing is apportioning the 385 House seats not specifically assigned based upon population. Ergo, compliance is achieved if they apportion 0 instead of 385, or 505 instead of 385. So a House size of 50 is technically legal for them to pursue, but it would never happen, as it defeats the purpose of there being a House of Representatives.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob


Aren't most states making their drivers' licenses compliant by the deadline.


Does that include the verification of citizenship for those who currently hold a driver's license. How about the places where they're issuing valid driver's licenses to non-citizens in the USA unlawfully? How are they going to clean up their databases and ensure they stay clean?

Replies:   tendertouch  PotomacBob
tendertouch

@Ernest Bywater

Does that include the verification of citizenship for those who currently hold a driver's license.


At least some states have, and probably will continue to have, two types of driver's licenses - the standard license and an enhanced version. Applying for the enhanced version involves proving citizenship.

Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

What they ARE doing is apportioning the 385 House seats not specifically assigned based upon population.


No, they are apportioned between the states based on population.

The variance comes from the fact that if you divide the US population by the total number of House seats to get a national House district size, the populations of the states are not even multiples of that, they are up to half a house seat over or under.

But then that half a House seat in population gets divided across the House seats the state does have, so the house districts are equal population (to within +/- 0.05% based on most recent census) within each state.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

The variance comes from the fact that if you divide the US population by the total number of House seats to get a national House district size, the populations of the states are not even multiples of that, they are up to half a house seat over or under.


And?

Regardless of how many house seats you add or subtract, at least until you make the House "nearly" the same size as the population itself. The variance will always be between "half a House seat over or under." OK, there are certain combinations of numbers where those numbers break down, in particular as it pertains to Wyoming. So for example 51 House seats for 50 states won't fly for multiple reasons.

But it still doesn't explain your basis for claiming a Constitutional restriction on the House deciding to reduce their number to 50. As again, their only requirements were
1) Minimum of 1 seat per state.
2) The specifics of enumeration to determine populations represented.
3) That the (additional) representation "be apportioned 'proportionally'"

They don't define the term, or any other kind of indicator as to what they considered a reasonable ratio. Although IIRC, there was an attempt at an amendment that would have set the District size at something like 30,000 people, so if we're going to go with intent. ;)

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Not_a_ID


But it still doesn't explain your basis for claiming a Constitutional restriction on the House deciding to reduce their number to 50. As again, their only requirements were


1. I haven't claimed such a restriction, though that would very likely violate Article 1 section 2 which requires that House seats be apportioned between the states based on population. And your 3) is just wrong. All of the seats, must be apportioned based on population

2. The House does not get to decide it's size on it's own. The size of the House is set by statute, which must pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by the President.

They don't define the term, or any other kind of indicator as to what they considered a reasonable ratio.


I don't get why you think there must be one fixed ratio that qualifies as "reasonable" regardless of total population.

Although IIRC, there was an attempt at an amendment that would have set the District size at something like 30,000 people, so if we're going to go with intent. ;)


1. It didn't pass congress and wasn't ratified, so there is zero intent indicated there.
2. If there was such an attempt, it would have to have been in the 19th century. 30k would be absurd with the current total US population as that would push the size of the House to nearly 12K

Replies:   AmigaClone
Jim S

@Not_a_ID

Really? Where does it say anything about it being equally representative? If that was true, I don't think they'd be able to keep it locked in at 435 Representatives.

The quote you included referred to the idea of a fixed number of 50 Congressional Representatives. Constitutionally, that can only happen if population was equal in all 50 states as they must be apportioned based on population. Given that current U.S. population is app. 322 million, simple math gives that number.

Attempted humor loses something when it has to be explained.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Jim S

Constitutionally, that can only happen if population was equal in all 50 states as they must be apportioned based on population.


A minimum of 1 seat per state in the House. Any additional seats are to be apportioned based on population.

If there are only 50 seats, there would be no additional seats to apportion.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Dominions Son
Harold Wilson

@PotomacBob

Anyone talking about when or if 70 percent of the people would be in 30 percent of the states is basically too late. We're about 65/30 right now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@REP

A minimum of 1 seat per state in the House. Any additional seats are to be apportioned based on population.

If there are only 50 seats, there would be no additional seats to apportion.


This.

Harold Wilson

@Jim S

live in Michigan and there appears to be a movement in the Upper Peninsula to form a state named Superior. Been going on for 20 years or so. Not very strongly though.


Pretty sure the main landers would vote to get rid of the yoopers in a heartbeat!

Replies:   Jim S
Not_a_ID

@Harold Wilson

Anyone talking about when or if 70 percent of the people would be in 30 percent of the states is basically too late. We're about 65/30 right now.


Oh, its more "fun" than that.

https://medium.com/@heatherarthur/electoral-college-worst-case-scenario-cd6f93a76c35

In order to maximize the losing candidate's popular vote, I filled up the electoral votes of the winning candidate with these low vote-to-elector states like Wyoming.

I also took advantage of the winner-take-all nature of the College. If the winning candidate won a state, it would win by only 1 or 2 votes. But if the losing candidate won a state, it would get every vote in that state.

Result
The result is one candidate winning the popular vote 78.7% to 21.3%, but losing the Electoral College 267 to 271.


Of course, they also assumed a one-way race, so WTA applied in a 3-way race(or more way race) could drive that differential down even further.

Dominions Son

@REP

A minimum of 1 seat per state in the House. Any additional seats are to be apportioned based on population.


No, that's not how it works. All the seats are to be apportioned based on population.

Replies:   Jim S  Not_a_ID  REP
Jim S

@Harold Wilson

Pretty sure the main landers would vote to get rid of the yoopers in a heartbeat!

Actually, most people I talk to don't care. Pretty much why the initiative hasn't gone anywhere. Only the yoopers are for it.

Jim S

@Dominions Son

No, that's not how it works. All the seats are to be apportioned based on population.


That's right. Any plain reading of the relevant Section makes that clear. Apportionment first, minimum of one/state second. Although I'm sure some progressive Federal judge being a true believer in the "living Constitution" can find the other way. :)

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Dominions Son


No, that's not how it works. All the seats are to be apportioned based on population.


I did a quick "define apportion" search on Google:


ap·por·tion

verb

past tense: apportioned; past participle: apportioned

divide and allocate.

"voting power will be apportioned according to contribution"


Congress is REQUIRED to give every state one seat. Then, by statute, the House and Senate determine how many seats are to be assigned to the House.

From there, the House is then obligated to apportion any seats beyond the the 1 seat minimum to the various states based upon population, as stipulated in the Constitution.

But as Congress(House+Senate) decides how many seats there are to be, it remains possible for them to "divide by zero" so long as a majority of the members of both the House and the Senate agree with doing so.

It would be amusing to see how SCotUS would rule if such an absurd scenario did happen, but I find it unlikely. Although you never can know for sure.

Replies:   REP
richardshagrin

The reason it is unlikely that Congress would vote to have less than 435 seats in the House of Representatives is that each seat is filled with a Representative who really, really wants to be re-elected to that seat for the rest of his or her life, unless an opportunity for a better job opens up, for example to be a Senator, a Governor, or a President, Vice President, or Cabinet Secretary. To vote away the seat currently occupied is political madness.

AmigaClone

@Dominions Son

1. It didn't pass congress and wasn't ratified, so there is zero intent indicated there.
2. If there was such an attempt, it would have to have been in the 19th century. 30k would be absurd with the current total US population as that would push the size of the House to nearly 12K


The amendment in question did pass congress - although it never got the adoption from the required number of states although at one point it needed only one state to be ratified. It was one of twelve amendments approved by congress and sent to the states in 1790 (eighteenth century). Ten of those became known as the Bill of Rights and the other one was ratified in 1992 as the twenty-seventh amendment.

The 30,000 per district would only apply when the population was under 3,000,000. The amendment proposal included text to gradually increase the district size to 50,000.

REP

@Dominions Son

No, that's not how it works


According to the Constitution, each state is entitled to a minimum of 1 representative regardless of its population. You can word that any way you wish.

The remaining 385 seats are apportioned based on population.

Replies:   Jim S
REP

@Not_a_ID

Then, by statute, the House and Senate determine how many seats are to be assigned to the House.


Not true. The Senate's size is fixed at 2 representatives per state. Currently, 100 representatives. The House of Representative's size is fixed by law at 435 seats. That law can be changed, but the Senate and House don't just arbitrarily decide how many seats are to be assigned.

Jim S

@REP

According to the Constitution, each state is entitled to a minimum of 1 representative regardless of its population. You can word that any way you wish.

The remaining 385 seats are apportioned based on population.


REP, that's not how it's done. Below is. Bold face was added by me. Italics are in the original.

From The Congressional Research Service "The House of Representatives Apportionment Formula: An Analysis of Proposals for Change and Their Impact on States" 2010

Summary

In preparation for the reallocation of Representatives among the states based on the 2010 Census,
it may prove helpful to examine the current House of Representatives apportionment formula. In
addition, some members of the statistical community have, in the recent past, urged Congress to
consider changing the current apportionment formula. Consequently, an examination of other
methods that could be used to apportion the seats in the House of Representatives may contribute
to a deeper understanding of the apportionment process.

Seats in the House of Representatives are allocated by a formula known as "the Hill," or equal
proportions, method. If Congress decided to change it, there are at least five alternatives to
consider. Four of these are based on rounding fractions and one, on ranking fractions. The current
apportionment system (codified in 2 U.S.C. 2a) is one of the rounding methods.

The Hamilton-Vinton method is based on ranking fractions. First, the population of 50 states is
divided by 435 (the House size) in order to find the national "ideal size" district. Next, this
number is divided into each state's population. Each state is then awarded the whole number in its
quotient (but at least one). If fewer than 435 seats have been assigned by this process, the
fractional remainders of the 50 states are rank-ordered from largest to smallest, and seats are
assigned in this manner until 435 are allocated.


The rounding methods, including the Hill method currently in use, allocate seats among the states
differently, but operationally the methods only differ by where rounding occurs in seat
assignments. Three of these methods—Adams, Webster, and Jefferson—have fixed rounding
points. Two others—Dean and Hill—use varying rounding points that rise as the number of seats
assigned to a state grows larger. The methods can be defined in the same way (after substituting
the appropriate rounding principle in parentheses). The rounding point for Adams is (up for all
fractions); for Dean (at the harmonic mean); for Hill (at the geometric mean); for Webster (at the
arithmetic mean, which is 0.5 for successive numbers); and for Jefferson (down for all fractions).
Substitute these phrases in the general definition below for the rounding methods:

Find a number so that when it is divided into each state's population and resulting quotients
are rounded (substitute appropriate phrase), the total number of seats will sum to 435. (In
all cases where a state would be entitled to less than one seat, it receives one anyway
because of the constitutional requirement.)


This method was specified in the latest enabling legislation, i.e. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. And Congress can change that any time it wants. Is it likely to? Your guess is as good as mine. But I doubt it.

Replies:   REP  awnlee jawking
AmigaClone

While the method used in the USA is not perfect, it's better than that found in some other countries.

In Brazil, the Chamber of Deputies (equivalent to the House of Representatives) in the US has 513 deputies. Per the 1988 constitution each state can have at most 70 deputies and a minimum of 8.

The consequence of this is that Roraima (the least populated state) is represented by a representative for every 51,000 inhabitants and, at the other extreme, São Paulo (the most populated state) is represented by one representative for every 585,000 inhabitants.

In the USA the range of the ratio of population per member of the house in each state is a lot smaller with the worse case (two states with nearly the same population but the state with a slightly larger population having two members of the house and the other one only one) is less than 1:2.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play
Updated:

@AmigaClone

the range of the ratio of population per member of the house ... the worse case ... is less than 1:2.

I do not see an inherent problem in that. At present 428 out of 435 members of the House represent electorates with as near as practical the same number of residents, while 7 members represent electorates (states) which may have fewer. What's the problem? Electoral systems with single-member electorates cannot ensure that a plurality of votes will produce a majority in the parliament. To be "fair", they need only ensure that will probably be so.

REP
Updated:

@Jim S

I like the last sentence.

The article is about the mechanics of apportioning the seats. It still works out that every state gets a minimum of 1 seat and the rest of the seats are apportioned according to population.

Perhaps it is just the way I perceive it.

Replies:   Ross at Play  Jim S
Ross at Play
Updated:

@REP

@Jim S
... And Congress can change that any time it wants. Is it likely to? Your guess is as good as mine. But I doubt it.


I like the last sentence.

What did you think that sentence means?
(a) He doubts that Congress would do 'that'
(b) He doubts your guess is as good as his

And which meaning do you think he intended?

Replies:   Jim S
awnlee jawking

@Jim S

If Haiti were to join the USA, I wonder whether that 435 would be kept constant and the quotas of the original 50 states reduced, or whether the 435 would be increased.

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play  Not_a_ID
Ross at Play
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

If Haiti were to join the USA

Surely you're thinking of Puerto Rico. Its citizens are already American citizens and it has one non-voting member of the House. If it became a state it would probably get 4 seats.

If Haiti became a state, and it's not on any path towards that, it would get more than a dozen seats.

Jim S

@Ross at Play

And which meaning do you think he intended?


a.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Jim S

@REP

The article is about the mechanics of apportioning the seats. It still works out that every state gets a minimum of 1 seat and the rest of the seats are apportioned according to population.

Perhaps it is just the way I perceive it.


Maybe. But I'm sure you know the devil is in the details. I downloaded population by state from the Census Bureau and calculated both the stated method and your 385 apportionment. My gut told me that they really would produce significantly different results. And my gut was right.

While my assignment method in the 3rd step might not be exactly as stated, it wouldn't have any effect on the major shifts. Texas loses 4. California loses 5. 19 small states each pick up 1 while 9 large states lose.

So there are real impacts depending on interpretation.

Replies:   REP
Ross at Play

@Jim S

a.

I assumed you meant that and I'm sure most others would do so too. I would say the literal meaning of what you wrote is (b), with 'it' referring to the closest thing it could refer to, the statement 'your guess is as mine'. It would have been a clever joke if you'd noticed that, managing to insult someone with them unlikely to realise it.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Ross at Play

I assumed you meant that and I'm sure most others would do so too. I would say the literal meaning of what you wrote is (b), with 'it' referring to the closest thing it could refer to, the statement 'your guess is as mine'. It would have been a clever joke if you'd noticed that, managing to insult someone with them unlikely to realise it.


You're right. The original was confusing. I could have stated it better.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Jim S

The original was confusing.

I'm a pedantic editor and I notice such things. I wouldn't have picked on this one if the implications of the alternative meaning had not amused me. :-)

REP

@Jim S

So there are real impacts depending on interpretation.


You missed one fact. I didn't define the means of apportioning those 385 seats, just that they were apportioned.

Replies:   Jim S
PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

How about the places where they're issuing valid driver's licenses to non-citizens in the USA unlawfully?


I believe states can issue drivers' licenses to anybody they like. If the state licenses comply with the federal ID law, the licenses can be used for federal ID purposes. But if they don't comply with the federal ID law, those licenses cannot be used for federal ID purposes. As I understand it, the federal law does not restrict the states' abilities to issue a license to drive a car, but only the ability to use those licenses for federal ID purposes.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl

@PotomacBob

I believe states can issue drivers' licenses to anybody they like.


Not exactly. States get to issue drivers licenses under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But ... Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 1 comes into play. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

So far, each state recognizes the authority of another state to issue a drivers license, which is proper and fully Constitutional. For their CITIZENS. Not their RESIDENTS. The two are completely different. Someone lives in a place, they reside there. But until they comply with the applicable law, they are not a citizen there.

It hasn't come up yet so far as I know, but the case could be made that for those 12 states that issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens are doing so unconstitutionally, because those licenses are not actual valid outside the state of issue. Thus, if that person with a state issued California license crosses state lines into Arizona or Oregon, he is actually committing identity fraud. (Nevada also issues licenses to illegal aliens.)

If they really wanted to shut down illegal aliens, it'd actually be pretty simple. Every time someone files a tax return with an ITIN instead of an SSN, go check them out and investigate. Chances are they're using a forged or phony ID and are here illegally. (ITIN - Individual Taxpayer Identification Number - a number the IRS issues to they can collect your taxes even when you're an illegal alien. THEY don't care if you're here legally or not, only that you pay taxes on what you earned.)

Ernest Bywater

@StarFleet Carl

If they really wanted to shut down illegal aliens, it'd actually be pretty simple. Every time someone files a tax return with an ITIN instead of an SSN, go check them out and investigate. Chances are they're using a forged or phony ID and are here illegally. (ITIN - Individual Taxpayer Identification Number - a number the IRS issues to they can collect your taxes even when you're an illegal alien. THEY don't care if you're here legally or not, only that you pay taxes on what you earned.)


Ayep, that's true, because us people who aren't US citizens but earn money within the USA have to pay the IRS on what we earn and we have to lodge a W-8BEN Certificate of Foreign Status of Beneficial Owner for United States Tax Withholding and Reporting (Individuals) with those who are paying us. That requires us to either apply for and quote an ITIN or provide my Foreign tax identifying number while also stating the treaty country the number relates to and certifying I'm a citizen of that country.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Not_a_ID

@awnlee jawking

If Haiti were to join the USA, I wonder whether that 435 would be kept constant and the quotas of the original 50 states reduced, or whether the 435 would be increased.


It didn't change when Alaska and Hawaii joined, it is unlikely to change in the future. (Ok, it did change briefly, but only until the next chamber-wide apportionment brought it back down to 435)

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Not_a_ID

Thanks. Out of idle curiosity, do you know which states lost seats to accommodate Alaska and Hawaii?

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

do you know which states lost seats to accommodate Alaska and Hawaii?

It's not that simple. California gained 8 seats in the same reallocation when Hawaii (2 seats) and Alaska (1 seat) were included for the first time.
Chart US House Seats by State

Jim S

@REP

You missed one fact. I didn't define the means of apportioning those 385 seats, just that they were apportioned.


Well, of course they're apportioned. What point are you trying to make? Mine is that using current apportionment methods matters when starting numbers are changed around as in your contention, i.e. everyone gets 1 and 385 get apportioned, instead of all 435 being apportioned.

Any other discussion leads into assessing the "fairness" of different apportionment methods, doesn't it?

Replies:   REP
PotomacBob

@StarFleet Carl

12 states that issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens are doing so unconstitutionally


It is just as easy to argue that any states that do NOT recognize driver's licenses issued by other states, even if issued to an illegal alien, are the ones that are in violation. In most of the states that i am familiar with, a 16-year-old can get a full driver's license without restrictions. But in New York State, it's 17. I believe the rule is that New York State MUST allow those kids who are only 16 and have a valid license to drive on New York highways, although they would be ineligible go get a New York license.

REP

@Jim S

What point are you trying to make?


That I'm not interested in the specifics of how they are apportioned.

Assigning 1 to each state is part of the apportionment, which is what the Constitution says is to happen.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@REP

Assigning 1 to each state is part of the apportionment, which is what the Constitution says is to happen.


Assigning one to each, or making sure each state has at least one. There is a difference, you know.

Replies:   REP
REP

@StarFleet Carl

... For their CITIZENS. Not their RESIDENTS. But until they comply with the applicable law, they are not a citizen there.


Each state defines what is required for a person to receive a drivers license. If the state issues a license to a person, the person has met the requirement for receiving a license. In some states, applying for and receiving a drivers license is a means of becoming a citizen of the state, which implies that states can issue drivers licenses to non-citizens who live in the state.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


... those 12 states that issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens are doing so unconstitutionally


You said the Constitution gives the states the right to issue drivers licenses. The Constitution did not limit who could receive a license or the licenses' conditions of use; that is the right of the state. All states in the US have a reciprocal agreement to recognize the drivers licenses issued by other states as valid (i.e., for both driving and identification). Therefore your whole argument about 'the holder of the license being an illegal alien making the license invalid' is not valid.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
REP

@Jim S

As I keep saying, 'I don't care how it happens as long as it does happen.'

You keep harping on the 'how'. The 'how' doesn't matter to me.

Replies:   helmut_meukel
helmut_meukel

@REP

REP, in this discussion you insisted that first all states get 1, then the rest is apportioned.

If however all are apportioned – with most methods that would result in fractions of a seat – and then all states with only a fraction of a seat get one full seat, so reducing the fractions of other states, this gives different numbers of seats to some states than your method.

The methods discussed for apportionment of all seats try to avoid fractions at all or are different in how the fractions are rounded. It's tricky, because all standard methods for rounding (e.g. 4/5) could result in more or less seats than the given 435.

HM.

Replies:   REP
Ernest Bywater

@StarFleet Carl

Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 1 comes into play. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


I suspect that section of the US Constitution applies only to privileges assigned to a person under the constitution of the state and not other legislated privileges. In that case the legislated privileges would be covered by agreements between the states via a process of cross recognition, and that is what is used to recognise the driver's license of a person from another state. Mind you, from what I've read that recognition only applies for while the person has their residence in that sate and a limited period after they move their residence to another state. I've heard of people being booked in some states for driving without a license because the state law requires them to obtain a local state license within x months of moving into the state and when pulled over after that period their out of state license was deemed to be expired despite the date on it. Not sure if they could challenge it in court or not.

Also, if the stated article was true for all legislated licenses then all states would be required to recognize concealed carry weapons licenses of all of the other states, but they don't.

REP

@helmut_meukel

this gives different numbers of seats to some states than your method.


I specified NO Method for apportioning all 435 seats. If you think I have, explain it to me.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Jim S
StarFleet Carl

@Ernest Bywater

if the stated article was true for all legislated licenses then all states would be required to recognize concealed carry weapons licenses of all of the other states, but they don't.


Actually, we're working on that ...

StarFleet Carl

@REP

You said the Constitution gives the states the right to issue drivers licenses. The Constitution did not limit who could receive a license or the licenses' conditions of use; that is the right of the state. All states in the US have a reciprocal agreement to recognize the drivers licenses issued by other states as valid (i.e., for both driving and identification). Therefore your whole argument about 'the holder of the license being an illegal alien making the license invalid' is not valid.


Except one relatively MINOR detail that you missed. The reciprocity clause applies to citizens of the United States or those here legally from other countries. If you are here illegally, you are violating FEDERAL immigration law. Thus, any documents you are issued by a state government are illegal if you cross state lines (which puts you under FEDERAL jurisdiction).

Also note that under the REAL ID act, if a state plans to have their drivers license meet those requirements, under Title 6 CFR 37.11, they may NOT issue drivers licenses that meet the REAL ID requirements to illegal aliens. To do so would be a violation of Federal Law.

(g)Evidence of lawful status in the United States. A DMV may issue a REAL ID driver's license or identification card only to a person who has presented satisfactory evidence of lawful status.

Replies:   REP
StarFleet Carl

@Ernest Bywater

Ayep, that's true, because us people who aren't US citizens but earn money within the USA have to pay the IRS on what we earn and we have to lodge a W-8BEN Certificate of Foreign Status of Beneficial Owner for United States Tax Withholding and Reporting (Individuals) with those who are paying us. That requires us to either apply for and quote an ITIN or provide my Foreign tax identifying number while also stating the treaty country the number relates to and certifying I'm a citizen of that country.


Note that I was not intending to say that you were here illegally. For three years I managed a tax preparation office and we had a LOT of people who would come in for tax preparation who only had an ITIN that was issued from California. And let's just say that they had Hispanic or Spanish sounding names (and their ITIN's may or may not have actually been valid) and leave it at that.

I will note that when Al Capone was actually arrested, it was due to his not paying taxes on his illegal wages and NOT because he actually made money illegally in the first place. I have two friends back in Indiana who are law enforcement agents for the Internal Revenue Service and they've told me some stories about their cases. It may sound incredibly stupid, but if you were an assassin, you could actually deduct the cost of your ammunition and weapons from your itemized taxes as necessary business expenses. (Apparently there really was a CIA freelancer who did his work out of the country who ended up doing just that. Since he never killed anyone in THIS country, he didn't violate OUR laws.)

Ernest Bywater

@StarFleet Carl

Note that I was not intending to say that you were here illegally.


I realized that, and I was simply supporting your statement while noting it also applies to people who live outside of the USA who earn money from inside the country.

robberhands

@StarFleet Carl

Since he never killed anyone in THIS country, he didn't violate OUR laws.

This is an often stated but untrue assertion.

There are three jurisdiction principles. Territorial Jurisdiction, Personal Jurisdiction, and Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The third principle is significant in this case.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction means as a US citizen you are at all times, regardless of your location at the time of the act, subject to US law. Thus for a US citizen, a murder committed even though in a foreign country is always also a crime which can be prosecuted in the USA.

Dominions Son

@StarFleet Carl

But ... Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 1 comes into play.


Not in the way you are suggesting. If the Constitution actually requires states to recognize the drivers licenses issued by other states, that would be Article IV section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

I suspect that section of the US Constitution applies only to privileges assigned to a person under the constitution of the state and not other legislated privileges.


It does, but that section also has nothing to do with recognizing acts of other states.

The section StarFleet Carl wanted is Article IV, section 1, also known as the full faith and credit clause.

Also, if the stated article was true for all legislated licenses then all states would be required to recognize concealed carry weapons licenses of all of the other states, but they don't.


And the federal courts have largely refused to enforce the full faith and credit clause in the case of CCW permits because "guns are special".

Dominions Son

@REP

I specified NO Method for apportioning all 435 seats.


You specified a method for apportioning the first 50 seats that has zero relationship with reality.

Jim S

@REP

I specified NO Method for apportioning all 435 seats. If you think I have, explain it to me.


This quote confuses me based on some of your previous posts re: apportionment. To wit (bold added):

REP 8/5/2018, 6:27:16 PM

According to the Constitution, each state is entitled to a minimum of 1 representative regardless of its population. You can word that any way you wish.

The remaining 385 seats are apportioned based on population.

REP 8/5/2018, 12:31:29 PM

A minimum of 1 seat per state in the House. Any additional seats are to be apportioned based on population.

If there are only 50 seats, there would be no additional seats to apportion.

REP 8/6/2018, 7:16:25 PM

You missed one fact. I didn't define the means of apportioning those 385 seats, just that they were apportioned.


If you stated that every state gets at least 1 Representative so, in effect, only 385 are actually apportioned, might have removed the confusion, as this now appears to me to be what you were saying . At least to me. If stated that way, I'd agree with you. Even though that's not the way the Constitution says it's to be done nor the way it is actually done in practice.

I suppose one could argue that the Constitution absolutely requires an unequal number of Representatives/state when it specifies that Representatives will be apportioned by population of each state. Seeing as that the only way each state gets the same number of representatives is if each state has the same population. Theoretically possible and practically impossible. Think Rhode Island and Pennsylvania at the time of the Constitution's ratification.

Couple that with the fact that apportionment methodology matters as differing methods return different results. Which I reported in one of my posts. And I'll venture a guess that the delegates back in 1787 spent far more time on this topic than we have so far as they recognized that whichever method was chosen would have far reaching implications.

Replies:   Ross at Play  Not_a_ID
Ross at Play

@Jim S

I just plugged the last census data and seat allocations for the House into a spreadsheet.

The minimum requirement of one seat per state was not needed; the population of the smallest state was enough to entitle it to one seat anyway.

In my calculation, I divided the total population from all 50 states by 435 giving the amount for one quota. Dividing each states' population by the quota amount gave each some number of filled quotas plus a left-over fraction. The total number of filled quotas was 413. I added one to the 22 states with the highest left-over fractions. The result exactly matched the current allocations to every state in the House.

In practice, because there are no very small states, the allocation of seats is, as near as practical, directly proportional to their populations.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S
Updated:

@Ross at Play

I used 2017 Census estimates by state for the exercise and the same methodology as you. Three states required the 1 minimum as they came up to less than 1 -- Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming. I removed D.C. and Puerto Rico's populations from the total prior to calculating the initial ratio (as they have no Representatives in the 435 voting) but arithmetically that should work to raise the initial ratio for those same states in step 2. And have minimal effect regardless. North Dakota may be affected if that isn't done as it is right on the cusp but I'm not going to bother to find out.

In any case, I did this exercise to check my gut feeling that assigning 1 to each state and allocating 385 versus allocating all 435 produces a different distribution rather than trying to match the current distribution as you did. Even so the 435 allocation method matches pretty closely given the 7 years of population shifts, e.g. California at 55. And we already know there will be some changes in the official distributions anyway as that has already been analyzed by more official sources than me.

In any case, the two methods produce different results. Bigly, in my opinion.

ETA: Need to correct. California at 53, not 55. Was thinking electoral votes.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Jim S

I used 2017 Census estimates by state

Seats are reallocated based on the results of 10-yearly censuses. The latest was in 2010.

The smallest state, Wyoming, earned its seat on the basis of its population. It had 80% of the quota amount. Rhode Island did well this time. It got two seats with a population below one-and-a-half quotas.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Ross at Play

The smallest state, Wyoming, earned its seat on the basis of its population. It had 80% of the quota amount.

I'm confused. Those sentences appear contradictory at first glance. Rereading still leaves me confused.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play
Updated:

@Jim S

@Ross at Play
The smallest state, Wyoming, earned its seat on the basis of its population. It had 80% of the quota amount.


I'm confused. Those sentences appear contradictory at first glance. Rereading still leaves me confused.

A quota is 1/435 of the total population of all 50 states. Every state will have some number of complete quotas plus a remainder. The total of all complete quotas is less than 435. The difference is made up by allocating one extra seat to the states with the highest remainders.

Minnesota got 8 seats with 7.487 quotas,
Rhode Island got 2 seats with 1.486 quotas,
but North Carolina got only 13 seats from 13.461 quotas.

Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota would still have received one seat each; with 0.786, 0.883, and 0.949 quotas respectively; even if there was no provision that every state must receive at least one seat.

The data I used was:
US Census 2010
US Congressional Apportionment

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Ross at Play

I didn't understand your use of the term quota, but that is the same methodology that I followed. Just different year for population.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Jim S

I didn't understand your use of the term quota, but that is the same methodology that I followed. Just different year for population.

Understood. The term quota is what Australians use for elections to our Senate in which every state elects 6 senators on a proportional basis.

Not_a_ID

@Jim S

Couple that with the fact that apportionment methodology matters as differing methods return different results. Which I reported in one of my posts. And I'll venture a guess that the delegates back in 1787 spent far more time on this topic than we have so far as they recognized that whichever method was chosen would have far reaching implications.


All they agreed to was that the house would have proportional representation. The "how" was left for congress to work out, and the specifics changed a few times up through the early 1800's and has been mostly stable since then, with the last statutory adjustment being in the 1920's when they locked in the House at 435 seats.

REP

@StarFleet Carl

If you are here illegally, you are violating FEDERAL immigration law.


I didn't miss the issue of the person being in the country illegally. That is a Federal issue. If the illegal is caught, they can be extradited. What I was addressing is separate from the Federal issue.

The states are allowed to issue state documents (e.g., a drivers license) to anyone who meets the state's criteria. According to the Drivers License Compact, only 45 states participate, the participating states accept another states license as valid. The compact is basically about how to handle traffic offenses committed in a state other that the state that issued the license.

If a state decides to issue a drivers license to a person in the country illegally, then the license is valid in the state. The compact recognizes all valid licenses. The person can be arrested for violating a Federal statute, but the person's immigration status does not affect the validity of the license.

I have no idea where you got the idea that the compact is limited to citizens of the United States and non-citizens who are in the country legally. I found a great deal of information about the Drivers License Compact and nowhere have I found any mention of the licensed person having to be a US Citizen. What is your source for that claim?

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/802.540

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@REP

The states are allowed to issue state documents (e.g., a drivers license) to anyone who meets the state's criteria. According to the Drivers License Compact, only 45 states participate, the participating states accept another states license as valid.


That's true, and an extension of that in some way I'm not sure of is the recognition of an International Driver's License so a foreign national in the USA can legal drive in the various states of the USA. The one thing about the out of state driver's license (other state or an International one) is that while it allows you to legally drive in the state it isn't issued from, it does not have to be recognized as a valid ID in another state. Thus they may let you drive a car and issue you with a violation ticket, but they don't have to accept it as an ID where some sort of proof of ID is required for something else.

.................

As to the other person's claim about non-recognition of licenses etc., they were referring to the US Constitution article about each state recognizing the citizen status and rights of the other states when in their state.

I think they were misapplying that article in regards to driver's licenses. The article was meant to give the citizens from State A the same rights as a citizen from State B under State B's state constitution while in State B. Where a lot of people get confused in that is they think the State Rights they have as a citizen of State A still applies to them in State B, but all that article does is say the citizen of State A be given the same rights a s citizen of State B while in State B. Thus if there is a difference in the rights of citizens in the states the citizens don't carry them out of the state, but those entering the state accrue the rights for while they're in the state.

That's why someone from a state where using marijuana is unlawful can legal use it in a state where the state allows the use of marijuana, but they don't have the right to continue use the marijuana when they leave the state where it's legal.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Ernest Bywater

Agreed. One small point though, even if the state doesn't recognize an out-of-state drivers license as valid ID, the store owners generally do.

Back to Top