The 3/5 clause says that African American slaves were worth only 3/5 the value of a free white person.
Today in the world of elections, the math is even worse. A voter in California has their vote counted as 1/4 the value of a voter in a small population state such as Wyoming.
The non-proportional distribution of electors in the Electoral College should already be declared unconstitutional — in violation of the “equal protection clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment. A provision of the original Constitution is void if it is repealed by a later provision of a subsequent Amendment. Example: slavery and the 3/5 clause were repealed by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments even though those Amendments do not explicitly mention that clause.
The Fourteenth Amendment requires “equal protection under the law.” While it does not explicitly repeal the unequal distribution of electors by specific reference any more than it explicitly repeals the 3/5 clause, which is usually the standard for defining a repeal, it does require every person be treated equally in public policy, and applies at both state and federal levels.
Since the Fourteenth Amendment applies to both states and the federal government, and already HAS been interpreted already as overturning unequal allocation of representatives in legislative apportionment at the STATE level (Baker v. Carr (369 U.S. 186 (1962)) and Reynolds v. Sims (377 U.S. 533 (1964))), the same standard should be applied at the federal level, meaning the unequal allocation of electors in the Electoral College should be deemed repealed by the later provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
African Americans were not the moral equivalent of 3/5 of a European American, and a California voter is not the moral equivalent of 1/4 of a Wyoming voter.
The 3/5 clause says that African American slaves were worth only 3/5 the value of a free white person.
Today in the world of elections, the math is even worse. A voter in California has their vote counted as 1/4 the value of a voter in a small population state such as Wyoming.
The non-proportional distribution of electors in the Electoral College should already be declared unconstitutional — in violation of the “equal protection clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment. A provision of the original Constitution is void if it is repealed by a later provision of a subsequent Amendment. Example: slavery and the 3/5 clause were repealed by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments even though those Amendments do not explicitly mention that clause.
The Fourteenth Amendment requires “equal protection under the law.” While it does not explicitly repeal the unequal distribution of electors by specific reference any more than it explicitly repeals the 3/5 clause, which is usually the standard for defining a repeal, it does require every person be treated equally in public policy, and applies at both state and federal levels.
Since the Fourteenth Amendment applies to both states and the federal government, and already HAS been interpreted already as overturning unequal allocation of representatives in legislative apportionment at the STATE level (Baker v. Carr (369 U.S. 186 (1962)) and Reynolds v. Sims (377 U.S. 533 (1964))), the same standard should be applied at the federal level, meaning the unequal allocation of electors in the Electoral College should be deemed repealed by the later provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
African Americans were not the moral equivalent of 3/5 of a European American, and a California voter is not the moral equivalent of 1/4 of a Wyoming voter.