Gerrymandering the Presidency

Years ago I worked for a State Senator in Louisiana. In that year the newspaper, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, characterized a bill that was introduced in the legislature as “a snake.” Specifically, the paper opined that there was a “snake to kill” in the legislature. While I do not recall the particulars of the legislation or what it sought to achieve, I do know that referring to a bill as a “snake” is a to none to subtle way of deriding it. Enter the second decade of the twenty-first century and there is a snake to kill that is currently making its way through not one but several state legislatures. The bill or bills that I am discussing refers to a Republican Party scheme to fix American presidential elections. I call it, Gerrymandering the Presidency.

Having largely failed in their scornful 2011-2012 attempts to steal the presidential election by way of vote suppression, the Grand Old Party is back with a new trick. This time, well ahead of the 2016 presidential election, the GOP is making a concerted effort to change how Electoral College delegates are awarded in presidential contest. Lest we forget, Americans do not directly elect the President of the United States. The President is officially chosen by the Electoral College. In most states Electoral College delegates are awarded based on the statewide vote totals that each candidate for President receives. Under the GOP’s new scheme to steal the presidency however, Electoral College delegates would be awarded based not on statewide vote totals but on the percentage of votes that a candidate receives in each of the state’s congressional districts. Would this little adjusting of the rules really alter the election results? Yes! If the proposed adjustment in how Electoral College delegates are allotted were in effect for the 2012 election, President Obama, while he won five million more votes than Willard Romney nationwide, would have lost in the Electoral College 280-258.

Congressional districts are typically gerrymandered for partisan advantage. Abolishment of the Electoral College and allowing Americans to elected the president directly is long overdue. But, deliberately devising a scheme of awarding Electoral College delegates based on gerrymandered congressional districts is a horse of different color. In states where Republicans control both the office of Governor and hold a majority in the legislature (OH, PA, WI, MI, FL) but where President Obama handily defeated Willard Romney, the plan is afoot to pull a switcheroo. The Grand Old Party has contrived a Grand Old Scheme to gerrymander the Presidency. As with vote suppression tactics, the Republican Party is openly declaring, “We can’t win. Let’s change the rules so that we can win.” Employment of such maniacal and desperate devices backfired in the lead up to the 2012 election. The GOP’s Grand Old Scheme is a snake. Republicans are foolish, at best, to assume that the coalition of voting rights organizations, organized labor, Democrats and others who successfully drove back voter ID have retired in self satisfaction.

Brent Scott

Executive Director

Vote By Mail America

Fiscal Cliff II, Humble Pie & Dereliction of Duty

When the House of Representatives voted last week to avert the much ballyhooed “fiscal cliff,” by raising federal income taxes on individuals and couples earning more than $400.000 and $450.000 respectively, something amazing happened. GOP Speaker John Boehner abandoned a tenet of the GOP gospel known as the Hastert rule aka majority of the majority aka super minority rule. As was previously explained in this column “the Hastert rule is about the empowering of a Super Minority in the House of Representatives.” Basically, it works like this, in order for any legislation to proceed to a vote of the full congress, that legislation must first have the support of at least half of the GOP congressional caucus. Half of the GOP’s congressional caucus is equal to about a third of congress IE a minority. The Hastert Super Minority rule is not an official regulation that one will find in the Robert’s Rules of Order nor any other guidebook on parliamentary procedure. It is a radical construct that was made up out of whole cloth by hyper partisan Denny Hastert, for a political party, the GOP, whose members are at once out of step with public opinion on a vast array of issues and who appear diametrically opposed to American principles of fairness. As a majority of the GOP caucus opposed the fiscal cliff deal Speaker Boehner had to eat a rather large helping of Humble Pie in order to do the right thing. Boehner brought the measure to the floor and had  to rely on the votes of Democrats to pass the legislation that averted a national and perhaps global financial crisis.

 

PA GOP Sen. Pat Toomey supports a government shutdown

Fiscal Cliff Redux and Dereliction of Duty
Immediately following the passage of the “fiscal cliff” tax deal in congress CBS News ran the following headline: Fiscal cliff" averted: Time for the "mini-cliffs.” The news item outlined three upcoming potential areas for gridlock including the debt ceiling debate coming in late February-early March, Sequestration, an automatic form of drastic spending cutbacks coming in March and lastly: Another government shutdown could be on the horizon at the end of March. Americans got a glimpse of how these battles would be fought, at least on the Republican side, when Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) went on MSNBC and said “We Republicans need to be willing to tolerate a temporary partial government shutdown...” What Sen. Toomey’s statement reflects is the sustained GOP belief in brinkmanship politics by way of dereliction of duty. Unwilling or unable to negotiate reasoned settlements on important issues of federal policy Republicans in congress have been operating on an “I won’t work” approach to governance. Such an approach has already caused harm to and could completely wreck the US economy.

“Con Men vs. Mod Squads”

Congressional Republicans have been aided in their obstruction by gerrymandered districts on steroids. In such districts, drawn by the majority party in state legislatures to insure a definite partisan outcome, too many members of congress are insulated from broad public opinion and therefore see no need to compromise. Nate Silver of the New York Times blog FiveThirtyEight.com estimates that there are only 35 competitive districts in the entire U.S. To combat partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts some reformers are pushing for independent redistricting panels. However, there are other ways that could in fact hasten independent redistricting in the future and even neutralize partisan gerrymandering right now. More on that in moment.
 

Democrats were caught flatfooted in the 2010 the midterm elections. Coming on the heels of two years of Democratic control of the House and the Senate and White House, Democrats lacked a cohesive message going into the midterm elections, lost control of the national debate and ultimately lost the House of Representatives to the GOP. As the 2014 midterm elections are on the horizon, Democrats would do well to begin strategizing on how to win a majority in the 35 competitive districts identified by Nate Silver. Fairly drawn districts should be a priority for both Democrats and moderate Republicans. Moderate Republicans across America should be seeking ways to save their party from political extremists that many believe will lead the party to extinction. One way forward can be found in Tom Franks’ book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas.” In Chapter 5: “Con Men v. Mod Squads” Frank discusses how conservatives and moderate Republicans in Kansas waged war against each other (throughout the 1980s, 90s and 2000s) resulting in congressional and gubernatorial victories for Democrats. Franks: “In 1998 a Democrat was elected to Congress by Republican-dominated Johnson County, and in 2002 a Democrat (Kathleen Sebelius) was elected Governor. These were due to rejection of "Con" candidates by "Mod" Republican voters.” Democrats should lay the groundwork now for convincing moderate Republicans to reject conservative Republican candidates on several basis including conservative opposition to reproductive rights, their inability to govern and their preplanned dereliction of duty as exemplified in Pennsylvania’s Republican Senator, Pat Toomey. For their part moderate Republicans should take concerted steps to win back their party from the dereliction of duty conservatives. Moderate Republicans can achieve this in two ways, 1. by challenging conservatives instead of cow towing to them and 2. by not endorsing conservatives if they prevail in the GOP primary.
 

To achieve the broader goal of creating fair districts both Democrats and moderate Republicans should join together to fight to redraw districts either in their state legislature and/or by way of ballot measures that would both create an independent redistricting panel and mandate immediate redistricting instead of waiting for the new census in 2021.
Brent Scott/Executive Director of Vote by Mail America