While I was an at-large member of the Dallas City Council, I dealt with issues that involved constitutional questions. For instance, when addressing a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require proportional representation as an imperative of political organization. The entitlement that the dissenting opinion assumes to exist simply is not to be found in the Constitution of the United States.
Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) (addressing a voting dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act brought against at-large Commissioners of the Mobile, Alabama Commission).
So: it’s not just pointy-headed legal scholars who say that the Equal Protection Clause does not have a “proportional representation” requirement. If you disagree with that assertion, then you don’t just have a problem with the legal scholars. You have a problem with the Supreme Court.
And yes, I understand the argument that Miers was referring to the “one
man person, one vote” rule. That may be. But the Supreme Court quote I just gave you should establish beyond any doubt that Miers’s language was, at a minimum, both 1) sloppy and 2) contrary to a settled understanding of the phrase.
Thanks to commenter Neil J. Lehto.
P.S. As was discussed extensively in John Roberts’s hearings, the holding of Mobile v. Bolden relating to Section 2 of the VRA was superseded by later Congressional amendments. These amendments do not affect the Court’s holdings regarding the Constitution in the slightest.
P.P.S. I await the commentary from those who claimed that the Equal Protection Clause obviously does require “proportional representation”; and/or that only pointy-headed legal scholars, “socialist, group-rights advocating, racial-demagoguery spewing civil rights lawyer[s],” and out-of-touch Con Law geeks would deny that simple truth; and/or who claimed that I was digging myself into a hole by claiming that Miers was either woefully ignorant or hopelessly imprecise. You know who you are. Let’s hear from you. I’d like you to acknowledge that, at a minimum, Miers used misleading and imprecise language.
UPDATE: Thanks to Jonathan Adler at Bench Memos for the link.