Interesting. Bookmarking. Possibly in reaction to the 'third entity' shifts in rhetoric there of late.
I'd quibble with one of the fundamental premises of the argument -- the US constitutional order certainly notes differences in rights between foreigners and citizens, citizens of different states, members of traditionally disfavored minority ethnic groups, etc. The difference is that these distinctions weren't equiprimordial with the establishment of the Federal Constitution -- they arose afterwards, even if the distinctions were present at the beginning. And actual adjudications of individual rights, even in the voting and constitutional context, have very little to do with whether these categories are equiprimordial with the constitutional order, or certain protections and rights arose afterwards. Questions of race and ethnicity and voting rights are very much an active area of American constitutional jurisprudence.
I've often thought a sort of electoral college model, with the electors having a free hand to bargain with each other, might be a means of reconciling the present arrangement with the ECHR ruling. The electors could individually pledge to uphold the ethnic balances that would violate the ECHR holding, were they to be imposed as conditions on the election itself, and the people could ratify that arrangement by their votes, vel non.
Caveat: I know absolutely nothing about this. Genuinely clueless. Just keeping an eye on the local legal ontology.
Again, utterly disinterested. I'm just looking for a place to drink coffee and read Henry James while exploring this part of the world. Though, full disclosure, I've been on to Ford Maddox Ford instead recently.