When I’m confused and disappointed by the actions of our elected leaders, I sometimes get the urge to reread our Constitution. Here are thoughts from a recent rereading.
From Article 1 Section 4: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…” Our Congress has the authority to standardize how and when we elect its members. It seems reasonable to conclude that Congress could prohibit partisan gerrymandering.
From Amendment 14 Section 1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” Legislative districts are created by state law. Here in North Carolina, the Legislature’s stated purpose in gerrymandering the districts was to elect Republicans to 10 of the 13 seats even though nearly half of voters actually vote for Democrats. They achieved that goal. The law that created gerrymandered districts seems to deny equal protection to citizens who disagree with Republicans.
From Article 2 Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Bribery would apply if a President accepted a bribe. Would it also be bribery if a Presidential candidate or his team agreed to not implement sanctions on Russia in exchange for information useful to their campaign?
The US Supreme Court has received gerrymandering cases from Wisconsin, Maryland, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. The lower courts are so politicized that news reports generally include whether the judges were appointed by Democrats or Republicans. The implication is that a judge is likely to rule in favor of the party that appointed her or him. That is an awful but sadly credible assumption to make about our supposedly independent judiciary.
If the court rules against gerrymandering, that is likely to result in Democrats gaining seats in the House of Representatives. In addition to being the body that originates federal budgets, the House is the body with authority to impeach a President – an action which a Republican led House might be more reluctant to consider.
If the Senate had approved President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, there would be a 5-4 split of Democrat vs Republican judges. Instead, the Republican controlled Senate refused to even consider the nomination for months – in hopes of winning the presidency and getting a Republican nominee. They succeeded in that; and with the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch there is a 5-4 split favoring Republicans. What will it say about our Supreme Court if a Gerrymandering decision is decided by that margin?
The Presidential election of 2000 may well have been swung from Al Gore to George W. Bush by a party-line 5-4 Supreme Court decision that stopped the Florida vote recount. We’ll never know. Nor will we know whether the US would have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan after 9-11 under President Gore. Such decisions change our history in profound ways.
Underlying many of the suspicions, malfunctions and failures of our government is the increasingly bitter partisan divide. Note however, that political parties are not even mentioned in our constitution. Only individuals, not political parties, have a constitutional right to be on a ballot. To protect their power (and the President), Republicans are now attacking the credibility of important institutions including our FBI, CIA and Justice Department. Russian agents have effectively used social media to discredit those same agencies. How ironic is it to find Republican leadership and Russian espionage agents on the same side?
President Washington warned, in his farewell address, that political parties, “…are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” It’s an apt description of current events.
Nations succeed and become great when most of the people support them and feel fairly treated. When a large proportion feel mistrust and mistreated, nations fail. Rather than “becoming great again”, our nation is in jeopardy due to citizen mistrust of elected officials. My conclusion is that it’s up to voters to save the union. No one else can do it.
Perhaps the most disturbing element of all was the incompetent primary process run by Republicans which allowed an unprepared person to win the nomination. Rather than a case of of a political party aquiring too much power, maybe this represents an instance of a party being too weak? The lack of restraints put on Nunes’ recent antics is perhaps a further example of Republican weakness? Is the Republican Party even any longer functional utilizing historical standards of political conduct?
Thanks, Bob, for another insightful article. You have a gift of making complicated information understandable.
Once again we all need to encourage everyone to vote, either in person, by early mail in ballots, or with absentee ballots.
As has been so often the case, Justice Kennedy may be the key vote on the gerrymandering case presently before the court. In the last such case Kennedy wrote the decision which allowed districts stand, but he indicated that he would have voted otherwise if there were a method available that could be used to create fairer districts. The present case is based upon just such a statistical method. As a result there is a reasonable probability that Justice Kennedy will vote to overturn the gerrymandered districts.
I also wonder about the validity of our “independent judiciary” when the political affiliation of a candidate for sheriff is printed on their sign.