Miers: US Constitution requires PR

Among the many puzzling things Harriet Miers has said comes yet another from the (in)famous judicidary committee questionnaire. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to “the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause” as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.

From the Post:

“There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation –which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies — with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.

Actually, either the Post or Sunstein is also confused, as the term “proportional representation” actually typically refers to the allocation of legislative seats in proportion to the votes obtained by parties. But it most certainly does not mean what Miers appears to mean.

I wish there were a proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause, but alas there is not.

I don’t have the Post story to link to; I am relying on a private e-mail I received from a trusted Post reader.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.