And when my plot of land is co-owned by my 100 shell corporations?

I don't think this is a good opinion or anything, but issues with vote dilution were expressly addressed in the opinion.

▲

nh23423fefe 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why are you pretending this argument wasn't addressed in the opinion?

▲

ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But it wasn't, really.

> Where a voter is entitled to vote by virtue of being both a resident and as an owner of real property, that voter shall be entitled to only one vote; where a voter is entitled to vote by ownership of two or more parcels of real property, that voter shall be entitled to only one vote.

> Any legal entity other than a natural person entitled to vote, must cast its vote by a duly executed and notarized power of attorney from the legal entity granting the authority to cast its vote to its designated attorney-in-fact… The person casting the ballot for such entity shall be age 18 on or before the date of the election and a citizen of the United States.

That just means I have to give 100 people POAs.

▲

forgetfulness 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Also what constitutes ownership here? Couldn't some Enterprising Individuals open 100 shell companies, pool together resources and form the Legalize Asbestos Consortium, the Consortium buys a plot of land and then each stakeholder of the Consortium counts as an owner of the plot of land?

	▲	joshkel 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		FWIW, it sounds like the judge may be open to ruling against such an action. From his decision at https://aboutblaw.com/blQg: > Even if Plaintiff had made a “vote dilution” or “one person/one vote” claim under the Equal Protection Clause, it fails. Plaintiff does not assert facts that would adequately support such a claim. Plaintiff does not allege... that natural person voters are a minority or are politically cohesive [or] that entity property owners vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the preferred candidates of natural persons. Although he also notes that the recent Callais case, severely weakening section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, may change this - and, of course, waiting until the Legalize Asbestos Consortium is doing its thing and trying to file a lawsuit is much more complex than preemptively saying "only natural persons can vote."
	▲	kulahan 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Asbestos is still used today in some instances. Should’ve used heroin or something

▲

SoftTalker 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What would probably happen is that all the the owners of the property would have to designate one POA among themselves to represent their collective interest in that property.

▲

rithdmc 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I didn't see anything about this in the opinion.

It does say that multiple owners of a single property can not have their voting rights apportioned by value, as this would be dilution or would not fit one person/one vote.