Almost one year ago I posted "Goodbye Syria and good riddance" on this blog. President Donald Trump had ordered a withdrawal from Syria in what seemed to many to be a non-consultative rash and reactionary move. His then Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis disagreed and ultimately resigned in large part because of the decision.
At that time I agreed with the President's decision and continue to support his efforts to withdraw from these interminable military deployments. Last year I was critical of the way in which the decision was made. It reportedly lacked consultation with allies and even within the President's own Administration. Trump eventually relented to across the board pressure to remain though there was a decrease in the number of forces by half.
The same arguments are being made that the decision this time was made hastily without adequate preparation and consultation. A lot of the criticism is simply the knee jerk reaction of the President's haters. No matter what he does it is wrong and they seek political advantage. But as in December of last year, there is significant opposition from two other sectors - Republican leaders and the defense bureaucracy.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wrote an Op-Ed this past weekend in the Washington Post titled: Withdrawing from Syria is a Grave Mistake. McConnell says, "It will leave the American people and homeland less safe, embolden our enemies, and weaken important alliances." I am familiar with these arguments from advocates such as McConnell, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham. They are hawks of the traditional "America as the indispensable leader" believers. I understand their arguments, but I ask: "At what cost?"
The election in 2016 was decided in no small part by people who have had it with the endless wars that expend blood and treasure for questionable objectives and results. In fact, the one sure way for Donald Trump to loose reelection is to engage in another such adventure. The Iranians are trying to provoke him to do just that. The defense bureaucracy would have reacted as would normally be expected but for the President saying no in reaction to the shoot down of an unarmed drone by the Iranians. Though the President has approved further deployments to Saudi Arabia as a deterrent in response to attacks on Saudi oil facilities he has not taken the bait to engage in yet another military adventure.
Below is the post from December of last year. It remains relevant. Everything below this line was written in December, 2018. Note it sounds just like this past week one year later. I have made some additions in bold. The original post with comments is linked here.
President Donald Trump ordered the withdrawal of approximately 2,000 U.S. military personnel in Syria this week. An immediate withdrawal appears to have begun. There also appears to be debate about whether U.S. air power might still be used within Syria to further U.S. limited objectives there.
When the Arab Spring erupted in Syria in 2010 the United States chose not to participate in the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad of Syria as he suppressed the uprising among his people. President Obama did not want to become engaged in the web of Middle East tribal warfare. He later erred in declaring red lines that he did not enforce, but he was right about not becoming engaged.
Later, in 2014, as ISIS grew and began to control territory in Iraq and Syria the U.S. position changed and President Obama advanced a military presence to confront the growth of ISIS under authority originally given President George Bush in 2001. U.S. forces were deployed to Syria. They also returned to Iraq for one purpose – to defeat ISIS.
A secondary effect of both the Syrian rebellion and the growth of ISIS was the creation of a refugee crisis as millions of Syrians fled to neighboring countries and Europe. The instability created as far away as northern Europe by the Syrian fighting was further impetus for U.S. resolve in defeating ISIS. Stabilize Syria and stop the flow.
President Trump campaigned on defeating ISIS and withdrawing forces from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Almost immediately upon entering office he ordered a top to bottom review of the war with ISIS. He then issued an Executive Order that is still classified secret but reportedly shifted decision-making to appropriate levels and stopped the whack-a-mole approach to chasing ISIS out of one location only to have them appear in another. Instead, they would be destroyed where they were.
In short order, under the leadership of Secretary of Defense James Mattis, the changes began showing results and ISIS was essentially defeated in little more than a year. The president withheld decisions regarding withdrawals based on the advice of his cabinet, but now appears intent on moving forward on those promises.
ISIS is defeated in Syria and Iraq having lost nearly all the territory it previously held. Yes, expect that it will raise its head again somewhere. But the explicit mission is complete. There is no Congressional or UN mandate to expand that mission to remove Bashir al-Assad, to eject the Russians and Iranians, or to fight our NATO ally Turkey to protect our Kurdish partners in Syria in their pursuit of an independent state.
For two decades the United States has been over-committed in the Middle East and Asia – the operational tempo endured by our forces has worn very thin both the equipment and the human beings who must meet those commitments. It is time to pull out of not only Syria, but Iraq and Afghanistan as well. This was part of the President’s mandate when elected in 2016. He withheld fulfilling those promises based on the counsel of others. He no longer sees their arguments as anything more than illegitimate mission creep that is contrary to the national interest.
Trump said this week, “Does the USA want to be the Policeman of the Middle East, getting NOTHING but spending precious lives and trillions of dollars protecting others who, in almost all cases, do not appreciate what we are doing? Do we want to be there forever?” He has said it all along and he has acted on it. Many agree with him.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis, having served two years, submitted a letter of resignation this week effective in February. The former Marine Corps general indicates in his letter of resignation that his views for the direction of the DoD are not consistent with President Donald Trump’s. The differing views were well known, but the announcement seems to have been sparked by Trump’s decision to immediately withdraw from Syria.
Mattis places tremendous emphasis in his resignation letter on alliances and partnerships as part of the structure of American power. In particular, he may perceive it as an abandoning of the Kurds. No doubt Mattis (former Central Command Commander) has probably placed his own personal credibility on the line with the Kurds. They have played a tremendous role in supporting U.S. objectives in Iraq (where we abandoned them after the first Persian Gulf War) and an even greater role in the Iraq War.
Senator Lindsey Graham has also criticized the President’s decision, expressing specifically his concerns about the Kurds as well.
The Kurds are always suspicious about U.S. reliability as a partner. But they once again joined us and played a front row role in defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Make no doubt about that. Also, have no doubt that the Kurds, and other partners such as Arab and Syriac Christian militias that have supported U.S. objectives in Syria, face tremendous threats from Syrian government forces, Russia, and Turkey after a U.S. withdrawal.
The Kurds have been sturdy partners to the U.S. They should be recognized and aided in any manner that does not conflict with other major U.S. interests. Our interests are not fully aligned.
Kurds are a persecuted ethnic group that seeks to establish self-government and even an independent state of its own for its people. Nearly 30 million Kurds are spread across Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, and Syria.
Update: The map below shows in brown where high percentages of ethnic Kurds are present.
Turkey, a NATO ally of the United States, views some organized Kurdish groups as terrorists. The U.S. and Turkey both classify the PKK as a terrorist organization. Turkey also classifies the YPG as a terrorist group, but the U.S. does not and has partnered with the group in its fight against ISIS.
One must place all of this in historical context. At the end of World War I the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. There was talk of creating a Kurdistan for the Kurds that basically would have encompassed about half of modern-day Turkey. The leader of the Turkish people, Ataturk, warned the Allies that a bitter fight would ensue if this was attempted. The War of Turkish Independence developed, extending fighting for two years after WWI. The British suffered a great loss at the Battle of Gallipoli. Greek forces that led the charge were routed.
Update: The British and French yielded to Ataturk and divided the Middle East into its present arbitrary state lines through a protectorate system established in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. The allied decisions and a lack of unity among the many Kurd tribal leaders took the the possibility of a Kurdish homeland off the table post-WWI. But the yearning for a homeland among Kurds did not end.
The Kurds have made more progress in establishing a homeland through their partnership with the United States in the past two decades than many could have dreamed possible. In addition to their autonomous quasi-state Kurdistan in Iraq, they have expanded their control of vast swaths outside of their autonomous region in northern Iraq.
Ethnic Kurds in Syria control about one-fourth of Syria. This territory has been acquired by the hard fought battles of the Syrian Kurds in partnership (not alliance) with the United States and their Kurdish brothers from Iraq and the broader Middle East.
The point is that the Kurds have benefited tremendously from U.S. partnership. They join us despite supposed past "abandonment" because they make tremendous progress through the partnership establishing a Kurdish state. Their leadership knows that there is time for advancement and a time for consolidation. The recent Turkish action was predictable. As Turkey, and the U.S., reassess and realign their positions the Kurds will focus on consolidation and hope for another opportunity to use Middle East conflict to partner with the U.S. and expand their dream.
The objective of U.S. involvement in Syria was to destroy ISIS. That goal was achieved. Those who seek to retain a presence in Syria see remaining as a means by which to prevent an ISIS resurgence and to use the presence to thwart the expansion of Iranian and Russian influence in the region.
That is a mission creep that the President is not willing to support. There is no U.S. policy to remove Assad by force. There is no U.S. policy to establish a Kurdish enclave in Syria contrary to the interests of a U.S. ally – Turkey. There is no U.S. policy to remove forcibly Russia and Iran from Syria. There is no policy to destroy Hezbollah in Syria.
The Middle-East is a tangled web of historic animosity, ancient grudges and fanaticism. The U.S. has been dragged into this web in Afghanistan and Iraq and now peripherally in Syria and Yemen. There is tremendous disagreement about the efficacy of such actions.
Place the historical animosities within the context of a blatant struggle between Turkey and Saudi Arabia over who will lead the Middle East’s Sunnis and a concomitant struggle between Shiite Iran and the Sunnis over who will dominate the Middle East more generally.
The President appears to have decided that the never-ending engagements in Syria and probably Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer worth continuing. Only time will tell if he is right. His Secretary of Defense disagrees with him strongly and has resigned.
The Secretary of Defense is resigning after serving two years in the position. That is not unusual. President Barrack Obama had four Secretaries of Defense, each serving about two years. President Obama fired General Mattis when he was Central Command Commander without as much as an email or phone call heads up. Obama’s team did not like the general questioning their approach toward Iran as they secretly worked on a nuclear deal. Fine, it was President Obama’s prerogative to fire him. It was not the end of the world.
What is important is the fact that President Trump is forcing a debate on the direction of U.S. national security strategy. For decades hawks have been able to justify almost anything based on 9/11. That time is rightfully coming to an end. There are much bigger fish to fry. Asymmetric cyber warfare is the greatest existential threat to the United States. U.S. National Security Strategy and resources should shift to that very real and dangerous threat.
Sunday, October 20, 2019
If pressed to predict the winner of the 2020 presidential election today I would predict that President Donald J. Trump will be reelected. The prediction is based on Professor Allen J. Lichtman’s “Keys to the White House” model. The model is a proven predictor that uses measures that are more objective than polls and pundits. The model predicted the Trump victory in 2016 while all other methods failed. But the prediction is only a marker in time - the present - and a lot could change.
The Democratic Party has avenues to change indicator status and the outcome in the remaining year. However, barring a major collapse of the economy, they may only be able to change the indicators on the margins. In that case they will need to provide a very strong candidate as an alternative to President Trump. Can the leading Democratic Presidential candidates provide that alternative? Read on.
The Democratic Party leadership appears to be cognizant of, if not explicitly using, Professor Lichtman’s Keys to the White House model as part of their strategy to defeat President Trump. Lichtman earlier this year explicitly stated that the Democratic Party needed to impeach President Trump if they wanted to have any chance of defeating him in 2020. Investigations are not good enough according to Lichtman. There must be a vote to impeach to create a perception of scandal adequate to turn an important indicator against Trump.
Other factors can change over the coming year. For example, a recession could occur, GDP growth could continue to decline, a major foreign policy blunder could occur, or an impeachment could have any number of follow-on effects, to include the rise of a challenger to the Trump nomination or a third-party candidate. All of these are possible over time and could change the prediction based on this model.
First, my assessment of the status of each indicator within the model. Six of these 13 keys must be red for an incumbent to be predicted to lose a reelection bid. Currently only 4 are red or pinkish and some are lighter green than others.
The Democratic Party is attempting to change some of these indicator keys. There is risk and unintended consequence in some of their pathways. For example, preventing a Trump success in trade deals by resisting a vote on trade agreements such as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement could prevent a policy success for Trump. But there are always unintended consequences and resisting the agreement could cost the Democrats if labor and others see the resistance as contrary to their interests.
The impeachment inquiry announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is another strategy that could change at least one and possibly more key indicators in the model. Professor Lichtman has explicitly stated that an impeachment vote will turn the scandal key against Trump. It could also create a ripple effect, depending on how it moves forward, that could potentially change the primary challenger key or the third-party candidate key. See illustration below for possible outcomes of impeachment.
A foreign policy failure could also help Democrats. Pelosi is today leading a group of House members on a trip to Jordan to meet with King Abdullah to talk about Syria and regional stability. The intention is likely to draw attention to President Trump’s decision to pull U.S. forces from Syria in the shadow of a Turkish invasion and create a perception and narrative of failure in foreign policy as part of a strategy to diminish the foreign policy key in the model.
Trying to drive changes in current key indicator status through policy resistance and impeachment are no sure bet to success and both are risky. Even if successful they will not necessarily turn six of the key indicators red.
One sure way to increase the Democratic chance of success is for the economy to collapse. It is Trump’s greatest advantage. Some Democrats think that would be desirable in order to beat Trump, but only one was willing to say it publicly.
Bill Maher, host of Real Time on HBO said earlier this year about recession, “And by the way, I’m hoping for it. Because I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy. So please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people, but it’s either root for a recession or you lose your democracy.”
Sounds nice to a multi-millionaire television celebrity but not so nice to a truck driver father and part time Seven-Eleven cashier mother with two children. Hate really does distort judgment. Expect a Trump commercial starring Mr. Maher.
The economy, particularly employment, is strong as indicated in Table 1, Lagging Economic Indicators, below. But note the trends in several of the listed items in the table are volatile. In addition, Table 2, Leading Economic Indicators, are showing weakness. This does not portend a recession is likely in the near term, but there is a softness developing that could get worse. The economy is President Trump's greatest strength and he will be working hard on trade deals and pushing the Federal Reserve Board for action to strengthen it.
President Trump is in a good position at present based on the White House Key Indicator model. The Democratic Party has some avenues they are pursuing that could potentially weaken his position before the election. None are guaranteed and all have risk of potential unintended consequences. Barring a collapse of the economy the likelihood of Democratic success is low to moderate in my estimation.
If six or more key indicators are not solidly red there will be another factor at play – the alternative to Trump. The Democrats may be successful at turning a few key indicators red and some others pinkish to get to six, but that will not ensure the outcome they seek. It will be borderline and other factors will become important. Most important will be the alternative to Trump that they offer.
I have watched with interest all of the Democratic Party Presidential Debates in their entirety and monitor the financial status of each candidate. The October 15, 2019 debate on CNN included 12 candidates that have met thresholds established by the Democratic Party in both polling and fund raising. Having seen all but one of these folks in previous debates some prognosticating is possible on who the alternative to Trump may be.
Former Vice President Joe Biden is done. He is too old at 77 and it is obvious. He was barely coherent in the latest debate. His third quarter financial status only confirms this. Biden’s proclivity for gaffs, his two failed previous runs for president, and his embarrassing son Hunter are further vulnerabilities, but the bottom line is Biden is just too old.
Senator Bernie Sanders is done. Bernie is also too old and had a heart attack last week to make the point. Polls show his decline. Even his most devoted Ron Paul-like followers must see the writing on the wall. Bernie still mustered strength in the debate, but his arm waving, finger wagging lectures are getting old and the pile of giveaways has reached a cost estimated by some at $98 trillion over the next decade. The adults are now paying attention and know that his socialist revolution sells only among idealists on college campuses and those who think Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who endorsed him this weekend) is the future. Bye-bye Bernie.
With Biden and Sanders in decline Elizabeth Warren is the big beneficiary. She would be 71 entering office if she were to win, but she demonstrates a lot of energy. With Warren as the front runner a lot of people in the Democratic leadership are going to grow concerned about her ability to defeat Donald Trump, asking - can Warren get it done?
Trump thinks not and that is why he wants her to be his opponent. That is why people in her own party are offering polls showing Michelle Obama in the mix. That is why Hillary Clinton keeps making soundings about her ability to “beat Trump again.” That is why Michael Bloomberg is putting feelers out. The Party has no faith that any of the front runners (Warren, Biden, Sanders) can get it done. They are feeling others out.
Warren has likeability issues. But those are minor when placed against her greatest weakness – policy. Ms. Warren proposes to turn the U.S. economy on its head at a time when the U.S. economy is doing well for most Americans. Though Bernie Sanders says she is a Capitalist, she agrees pretty much with every one of the Socialist Sander’s policy proposals. This is an alternative too far. I estimate Warren is unlikely to defeat President Trump if six or more White House Key Indicators are not solidly red against Trump.
The last debate revealed some alternative candidates beginning to gain ground against the top three polling candidates of Warren, Biden, and Sanders. Senator Amy Klobuchar probably had the biggest impact in the last debate – finally finding her voice.
Khlobuchar is trying to position herself as an alternative to the wild-eyed change-the-world direction of Sanders and Warren. She is basically saying, “you cannot get any of that done.” She knows as a member of the Senate how hard it is to get even a simple piece of legislation approved. Medicare for All, Green New Deal, Free College, Free Daycare, Student Loan Forgiveness, Citizen Corporations, Packed Supreme Courts, etc. etc. She knows it is all a fantasy saying to Warren in the debate, "The difference between a plan and a pipe dream is something that you can actually get done.” Khlobuchar was rewarded with her biggest one-day contribution haul in the 24 hours after the debate.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg is in the Khlobuchar camp of “what is really achievable.” He has an excellent grasp of issues, speaks well, and can articulate and defend his positions. He called out Warren to define where the money will come from for her expansive and expensive plans. He attacked Gabbard and O’Rourke trying to distinguish himself as in a higher tier. Buttigieg has a real chance to step into the limelight if the current Warren juggernaut is diminished. He too was rewarded after the debate with record contributions.
Finally, there is Andrew Yang. He is an outsider who is making headway. This was his best performance. He has a perspective that allows him to point out the problems that are facing us that is different from the others. Older folks might not understand him because he is talking the problems of the technology age. But young people may well begin to take him more seriously. He too has a positive financial standing and is one to watch.
The remainder of the field on the stage earlier this week are also-rans. They have no chance of winning the primary and their financial situations will force them to drop out one by one in the coming weeks and months.
In summary, Donald Trump is currently in a commanding position that according to the White House Key Indicators model suggest he would win if the election were held today. But it will not be held today and there is time for change. A major economic collapse or major foreign policy blunder by Trump could signal a major shift. Without such change the Democrats still have a chance to alter important key indicators through impeachment and policy resistance to create an indicator environment where their alternative could potentially defeat Trump. Warren is the current front-runner, but I estimate she cannot get it done in a general election. Coming up in the pack are candidates Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Yang. Each could possibly overtake Warren but none has yet shown the gravitas that could lead to an assured or even probable victory over Trump.
If the Democratic Party leadership is having doubts about their candidates they had better get an alternative spun up fast because the clock is ticking.
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
Automobiles have played a major role in American economics, history, transportation, and culture. The industry is in transition as it moves full force to create electric autonomous advertisement pods. Yes, you read that right – ELECTRIC AUTONOMOUS ADVERTISEMENT PODS.
Automobiles in their early days were a statement of wealth but were quickly available to the common man with the advent of Henry Ford’s assembly lines. John Paul Getty’s Standard Oil ensured the combustion engine would monopolize the industry over Thomas Edison’s electric vehicles. President Dwight Eisenhower created a massive network of highways that would ensure the dominance of the automobile over all other forms of transportation and underpin suburban sprawl.
The heyday of the automobile was the 1950's and 1960's when creativity and art dominated. The major manufacturers would introduce new model years with great fanfare. Television reached the masses and it could be used to promote sales in many ways that created an emotional attachment to brands. Creativity also rested with individuals that could take older cars from the 1930's and 1940's and convert them into unique artistic statements as hot rods and later muscle cars.
At a recent 4th of July parade, as the antique cars passed by, my brother-in-law and I would say as they approached, “1968 Chevy Camaro, 1934 Ford Pickup, 1957 Thunderbird, etc.” A nephew of about 35 years of age watching the parade with his own young children said, “how do you guys know all of these old cars so well?” I said, “in our time cars were a work of art. When the new model year was rolled out there were themes like the introduction of two-tone paint, or push button transmissions, or rocket lights reflecting the space age. They were things of beauty and innovation that we all wanted. Cars today for your generation, like so much else today, are consumable items. They all look the same. You lease them and turn them in. Do you foresee anyone coming to a parade like this when you are our age saying, “Oh, wow, there goes a 2015 Nissan Rogue or a 2007 Toyota Corolla?”
Cars were a common shared experience for the Baby Boom generation. Teens were bursting to obtain their license. It was a means and a symbol of independence. They almost immediately purchased a car for as little as $50 (my first was that price - a 1961 Dodge Dart). They paid for the car, the insurance, and the gas. They did everything in their cars. On weekend nights they rode up and down Main Street, stopping for an ice cream and to talk with friends. Boys did much of the maintenance themselves. Girlfriends and boyfriends went “parking” at the reservoir or some other place for romantic encounters at the end of a date. Cars were an integral part of their culture.
Thursday, June 6, 2019
Former South Carolina Governor and United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley will likely be elected the first female President of the United States. Whether that happens in 2020, 2024, 2028, or 2032 is the question. At 47, she will be a relatively young 60 year old candidate as far out as 2032.
Haley has six years of experience as a governor. As Ambassador to the UN she was a standout on the international stage. She is young. She has solid experience. She is a mother. She has center-right conservative bona fides. She is a woman of color. She is attractive. She is an excellent speaker and unflappable debater. Her husband is a Major in the Army National Guard who has deployed to Afghanistan.
Last October Haley announced in the Oval Office, seated beside President Donald Trump, that she would leave her post as UN Ambassador. NPR reported at the time of her resignation, “She did not say what she will do next, except that it will be in the private sector.” Since Haley’s departure she has not taken a position with any private firm, but instead has positioned herself for a presidential run. Her finances are improving as she commands $200,000 for speaking engagements.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
A presidential election approaches and the giveaway bidding keeps rising. The two big ticket bids are “free college education” and “forgiveness of student loan debt.” These two issues are symptoms of a problem. They are not the problem. Too often in our culture we focus on symptoms and politicians pander with supposed solutions. That is why many problems are never solved. The real problem is a higher education system that is far too costly and ineffective in delivering quality outcomes efficiently.
Students and their parents sense that something is out of joint. Increasingly they are questioning the value proposition of the four-year college. (Actually, only 39% of students graduate in 4 years and only about 60% by year six.) The cost is too high. The rigor of the experience is questionable as everything outside of academics seems a priority on campus with socialization atop the list. The enhanced economic promise associated with the degree are diminishing. And the debt burden incurred can be stifling.
Higher education costs have skyrocketed. The quality of education has not improved in any way proportionate to the rise in cost. Government programs to make higher education affordable have in fact had the opposite effect – fueling rising costs. Much of the burden of that cost is placed on the shoulders of those ill prepared to complete college and ill prepared to pay back the debt burden.
Saturday, April 6, 2019
The recent creation of a Facebook Group for people from my hometown "This was Randolph" quickly drew nearly 5,000 members. Thousands of posts, comments and reactions indicated life in Randolph, Massachusetts in the 1960s into the 1980s was overwhelmingly positive for children and teenagers. No doubt young people in many small towns across the country in the same period shared that positive experience.
The creator insisted that members must have lived in Randolph, Massachusetts at some time. Group members could submit a post on pretty much any topic except politics. Postings quickly poured in and thousands of reactions and comments followed. Additional conversations were sparked and in many cases friendships that had faded with time were renewed. Reading through the posts and comments an abundance of fond recollections and appreciation for the environment, institutions, and people of my hometown flowed readily.
In a 1993 Washington Post Sunday Magazine feature about Rod Langway, an NHL Hall of Fame hockey player from Randolph, the author described Randolph as a “tough blue-collar community south of Boston.” I was living in Washington, D.C. at that time. Reading the article I was taken aback by that description of my hometown.
When thousands began migrating from Boston to the fast-growing town in the 1950s it was considered a country backwater. It quickly became a blue-collar working-class town in the 1950s and 60s, but it never seemed “tough” in a pejorative way. It was a place of large families and bursting schools where children played outdoors with little or no supervision. It wasn’t perfect, and there were some that suffered in isolation and abuse, but the reflections on the Facebook Group surely show it was in general a wonderful place to grow up.
Reading the posts within the group, one could not help but think how much has changed - not just in my hometown, but in many small towns across the country.
Who are these 5000 people in the Facebook Group?
Thursday, March 28, 2019
There are two interesting and very important questions before the Supreme Court this term relating to congressional representation. One case is about apportionment – the way in which the federal government allocates the 435 Congressional Districts to the states. The other is about redistricting – the way in which districts are drawn within and by states. As they are both complex issues this will be a two series blog, Part 1: Apportionment and Part 2: Gerrymandering. Apportionment is the process of allocating congressional districts after the decennial census. Gerrymandering is the manipulation of congressional districts within state boundaries for political advantage.
These are complex issues for the Supreme Court that float in a gray area between politics and clear-cut law. The issues may seem arcane to many, but they are of major consequence for the republic relating to representation, power, and resource allocation. Both issues are worthy of considerable citizen attention.
In Part 1: Apportionment, the Constitutional requirement was described to conduct a census every ten years from which the 435 Congressional Districts are reapportioned to the states. A further mandate that each of those districts have roughly the same numbers represented was also established. Beyond those broad goal posts the responsibility for creating the districts within states is left almost entirely to the states themselves.
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature.” It further provides a regulating authority stating, “the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”
Placing the state legislatures in charge of creating districts within their borders makes the process a political one. As in all political activities advantage is sought by competing interested parties. An environment ripe for abuse is created.