Gerrymandering makes a mockery of "consent of the governed" principle
Published February 2, 2018
Editorial by Wilmington Star-News, January 28, 2018.
Extreme partisan redistricting creates gridlock. Or not.
Here in North Carolina, one of the most gerrymandered states in the nation, Republican supermajorities in Raleigh can rule unchecked. They’re changing the way judges are elected to advantage Republicans. They wrote partisan election rules that, according to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision.” They’re losing one legal case after another as they draw maps to gain advantage.
Veto-proof majorities ensure that even a Democratic governor has little means to thwart Republican power grabs.
But it’s a different story at the national level, where gridlock reigns.
Strong majorities of Americans support letting undocumented immigrants brought to America as children stay here rather than being sent back to countries they’ve never known.
But Congress stumbled into a government shutdown over that issue, and it remains unresolved because lawmakers are unable to compromise on much.
Gerrymandering causes them to worry less about an election challenge from the opposite party than about a primary opponent from their own party. Primary voters tend to be party loyalists, fiercely dedicated liberals or conservatives who vilify those on the other side.
The lawmakers willing to work across the aisle when needed stand a good chance of being “primaried” and losing their seat to a true-believer who vows never to compromise.
A forum on election redistricting held Jan. 18 at UNCW explored the problem.
“There are a lot of Americans that are disillusioned,” said Tom Ross, president of the Volcker Alliance, which seeks to advance effective governance, and former president of the UNC system.
He said gerrymandering contributes to voter apathy and low turnout. If you’re a Democrat in a Republican district or vice versa, you might see little point in voting. And it encourages politicians to cater only to their base.
Having elections in which the outcome has not effectively already been determined is not just a right, it’s needed for a representative government to properly function. Today’s extreme gerrymandering, in which computers predict voting patterns down to the block, is crippling our ability to govern ourselves, as election outcomes increasingly are disconnected from the actual will of the people.
And it’s not just in North Carolina, where state Rep. David Lewis defended a partisan map because “electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats.” (That’s how a state that elected a Democrat governor easily sent Republicans to Congress from 10 of our 13 districts.)
Courts have rejected Republican maps in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and a Democrat-drawn map in Maryland. Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court are mounting.
We want to make this absolutely clear -- this issue has nothing to do with the legitimate policies of any party. This is not about what specific policies we are for or against. We support a marketplace of diverse ideas. That is why we daily publish opinions from completely opposite sides of the political spectrum.
We want to see ideas from all sides on the table. And, call us naive, we adamantly believe that a majority of our fellow citizens will then -- through their elected representatives -- seek what is best for our nation.
But remember, we are not a direct democracy; we are a republic -- meaning governance is a “public affair” -- with representative democracies that are instructed by federal and state constitutions.
This passage, attributed to “The Cyclopedia of Political, Constitutional, Statistical and Forensic Knowledge,” is quite clear: “The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through elections expressing the consent of the governed. Such leadership positions are therefore expected to fairly represent the citizen body.”
Say it out loud: “Such leadership positions are therefore expected to fairly represent the citizen body.”
Through their Declaration of Independence, the Founders made it clear that we have “certain unalienable Rights.” Furthermore, governments formed to protect those rights get their “just powers” from one source: “the consent of the governed.”
On a practical level, gerrymandering births government dysfunction. But worse -- and this is what makes it so despicable -- millions of voters no longer get to legitimately participate in the “consent of the governed” that our very founding document cherishes.
This most un-American of practices must end.
February 2, 2018 at 10:09 am
Norm Kelly says:
'But Congress stumbled into a government shutdown over that issue, and it remains unresolved because lawmakers are unable to compromise on much.'
Since this was published in a local newspaper, rags that are typically liberal across the nation, we can't expect too much honesty or the full story. Leaving out details provides the opportunity for misinformation, as planned by the author(s).
Congress DID NOT stumble into a government shutdown. Demoncrats FORCED a shutdown over an issue that did not exist at the time. DACA was not in jeopardy when demoncrats CHOSE to FORCE a shutdown. The forced gov't shutdown was, is, the fault of demoncrats that once again over-played their hand. There was NO stumbling on this issue; it was an artificial issue that demons expected their allies in media to be able to paper over, create the illusion that Republicans were responsible. The only challenge is facts are easy to find, and it became rapidly obvious that libs/socialists/anti-Americans created a crisis where none existed.
The issue with DACA isn't supposed to become an issue until the end of February or early March. So why did demonrats CHOOSE to force a gov't shutdown in January? Cuz they thought media could spin it in their favor. Except they couldn't and they were forced to change their minds and allow the gov't to open once again. The shutdown hurt the lib cause, hurt the lib party, and showed most Americans that libs care more about illegal aliens than average Americans. Just like their show at the SOTU speech! Once again, libs over-playing their hand!
It's not that lawmakers are unable to compromise. It's that socialist, anti-American demonrats won't BUDGE an inch. This too is caused by 2 factors. First, they continue to believe that media allies will be able to mislead enough American citizens that it's Republicans unwilling to compromise. Kinda like the author of this piece. It may not be so, but it sure looks like an attempt to mislead, possibly giving demons cover.
At what point have libs offered a compromise on illegal immigration or illegal immigrants? I would love for anyone, even a media ally, to be able to demonstrate without question that libs have offered even the slightest compromise. But, since libs have stood fast on this issue, I won't hold my breath. Remember, it the socialist party, the one that believes they are above the law, that creates sanctuary cities and now states. Cuz they care more about future lib voters than they do every-day, average American citizens.
I don't hate immigrants. I don't even hate illegal immigrants. But we have laws governing immigration. And lib, anti-American, anti-law pols are content to allow non-citizens to break the law. These same lib pols are willing to give up American sovereignty for the purpose of future vote gains. If you follow either the money or the votes, you will find the reason why most pols do what they do. It's not for your benefit or mine, most of the time, it's for THEIR benefit. And without hate, I prefer that our laws be followed. Just because it MIGHT hurt a non-citizen does NOT mean we need to give up our laws or our sovereignty. It's still OUR nation, and does not yet belong to illegal immigrants.
