The Political Chase

One Person, One Vote

Hillary Clinton declared in an interview with USA Today that she should be the Democratic presidential nominee because she has a “winning coalition” comprised of “hard-working Americans, white Americans” and “whites…who had not completed college.” Not only are Clinton’s remarks racist, but they are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In her declaration, which is echoed by her supporters, Clinton proclaimed a de facto greater voting power to groups specifically contained to “white Americans” and “whites…who had not completed college.” By doing so, Clinton summarily dismissed our one person, one vote jurisprudence.

It is bad enough that Clinton, a United States Senator, bases her alleged superior status on such an unconstitutional claim, but it forces the lunacy of the incredulous claim to propagate throughout the citizenry. Her influential status as a Senator falsely conveys legitimacy to the less informed voters.

There could hardly be a better example of the cause and effect influence than this comment by TPC reader Bob from Texas.

“She is correct. The black vote, if every black voted for Obama, would only bring him something like 15% of the national vote. Of course, exceptions have to be made because Florida voters do not know how to use voting machines or the paper ballots.

If the hispanics voted for Obama, that would only be another 12-15% of the vote.

If all of the whites vote for Hillary, she wins by the popular vote and probably by most of the electoral college votes.”

Bob from Texas and Hillary Clinton have mandated a new rule for voting – block votes. Based on this logic, African-Americans should not return to a three-fifths vote status, but instead, should have no vote at all. Why, hell, let’s just put every African-American back in chains.

In Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969), the Supreme Court said, “[t]he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.” Id., at 819.

Of course, considering how many times Senator Clinton has cited numerous “rules” that never existed to declare her inalienable right to be the Democratic Party’s nominee, why would anyone expect her, or her lock-step supporters like Bob of Texas, to be concerned with the Rule of Law?

I recognize that the rules of nominating a political party’s nominee are not the same as a general election, but the principles of voting, whether it is a primary election or a presidential election, cannot contradict the human rights and principles of equality the United States Constitution grants to every person, not just Hillary Clinton and “white Americans.”