What the Ninth Amendment says is that rights retained by the people cannot be denied or infringed.
The US Constitution should not be read as Case Law, because it isn't a matter of Case Law. It is a well-anchored and Enlightened document. To read this legislative document correctly, one should read it as if it is the latest court decision pronounced by the highest judges.
I have seen this mistake made by many. They think that when a judge has not said anything in particular about something pronounced in the US Constitution, then we do not have any position on it.
It is understandable. Everything else, legally, is Case Law (or English Law).
Hip hip hooray therefore for the Founding Fathers because they did not create a document based on Case Law. They established the foundation of the nation next to which there is no deeper truth or higher power anywhere in the United States.
When the Ninth Amendment says that no one can deny the rights retained by the People, then this covers everything that is itself not mentioned in specifics in the US Constitution.
--
Let's dig in, because there is plenty said in the US Constitution that takes away from the People being represented fairly.
- The Federal elections are the obvious ones. While each state getting the same two senators is clearly not a fair system, it is described as such, and it stands as such. No two butts about that.
- The States are given powers to an extent that not all is described in specifics. That gives the States the legal power to push back the Ninth Amendment a bit. The Ninth Amendment still tells them to not undermine the powers of the People, but they hold cards in their own hands that can downplay that trump card.
- The city and county governments do not have any US Constitutional powers, while the People in these cities and counties do have US Constitutional powers. As such, the game is definitively in favor of the People and what the Ninth Amendment tells these local governments to (not) do.
The cities claim to follow State rules, but State rules cannot go against the US Constitution when declared for non-State governments. That States got away with that for themselves and their elections is too bad, but they cannot have others get away with it, too.
It's a bit like the State being a landlord of an apartment complex of cities and counties. The landlord then says that cities and counties cannot cook Brussels sprouts in their kitchens. Obviously, that is illegal. The State can prevent the cooking of Brussels sprouts in its own kitchen, but to demand it is not cooked in places they own but do not live in, that is illegal and smacks of separate-but-equal overreach by governments.
Not the Supreme Court is the highest in the nation: The US Constitution is the highest in the nation.
Next, the People are considered the sovereigns of this nation, although the US Constitution does not delve into their powers all that much. Yet their highest position is declared to the point that any person in the USA knows about that.
--
Thomas Jefferson was the first person to devise a system of proportional voting (not the fake versions, like ranked choice voting, but the actual proportional voting system).
It is clean because there are no losers.
In district voting, at-large, and ranked choice voting, there are always tons of losers. They vote and they get nothing but the person they did not vote for.
In proportional voting, all voters get the one they voted for. I'll qualify this below.
When there are just two seats, the minimum guarantee is 66.67%.
When there are three seats, the minimum guarantee is 75%.
When there are four seats, the minimum is 80%.
Five seats: 83.33%
Six seats: 85.71%
Seven seats: 87.5%
Eight seats: 88.89%
Nine seats: 90%
etc.
So a city now holding elections in at-large, district or r.c.v. guarantees that 50% of the voters (plus one) are getting the person they desired in that seat. That minimum guarantee stays the same no matter the number of seats.
In proportional voting, when there are nine seats, that guarantee is 40% on top of that 50%. That 90% is then the minimum number.
Nations with the clean voting system often have 100 or more seats. With 100 seats, the guarantee is 99.01%. That’s the minimum. In other words, as a voter one really has to work very hard to not have one's vote translate into an actual person in a seat. It is almost impossible to not get the one you want when there are many seats.
--
The separate-but-equal cases of the 1950s told governments one important thing:
They have to use the better system. They cannot use inferior systems.
Thomas Jefferson's voting system is that better system. For local and State elections, all scholars agree (but all agree, too, that using it at the Federal level is not advised).
Thank you for being curious, Steven.
