Census Controversy and Gerrymandering before the Supreme Court - Part 2: Gerrymandering

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.

GERRYMANDERING

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. 

Trump exonerated - stop the resistance! It's futile

To win the 2020 presidential election and retain control of the House of Representatives the Democratic Party must stop the endless acrimony over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential election loss and move on to offering solutions to real problems.  If not, it will lose the 2020 presidential election and the House of Representatives. The nation is worn thin by the post 2016 rancor.  Further continuation of a strategy of “resistance” is harmful to the nation and likely counter to future Democratic electoral success.

On May 17, 2017 Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller in an “Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters.”  Thirty-four indictments of individuals and three companies resulted.  Thirteen Russians and two companies were indicted for social media trolling and twelve Russian military officers were indicted for hacking the Democratic National Committee Email servers.  The remaining indictments and convictions were for peripheral violations of the law such as lying to the FBI or Congress or long-past crimes unrelated to the election. 

On March 24, 2019 Attorney General William Barr provided the major findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report titled:  “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.”  Barr writes, “the Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US. presidential election.”  Further, the Attorney General found that, “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

In 2017 a special counsel was demanded.  Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself as demanded. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein provided the Special Counsel with an extremely broad authority and scope.   Mr. Mueller was unhindered by the White House or the Department of Justice in his investigation.   Everything possible was done to accommodate those that demanded a full, fair and thorough investigation. 

Immediately following the release of the Attorney General’s top-level summary Representative Maxine Waters said, “this is not the end of anything!”   The Democratic Party follows her lead at its peril.

Census Controversy and Gerrymandering before the Supreme Court - Part 1: Apportionment

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.

APPORTIONMENT

Every ten years the United States Census Bureau conducts the census in accordance with Article 1 Section 2 of the United States Constitution.  The Constitution originally provided for the maximum amount of people in a district (30 thousand) at the start of the republic. However, as the number of states increased, and the population grew, it became impractical to keep expanding the number of districts or to restrict the number in each district to thirty thousand.

The Apportionment Act of 1911 established that there shall be 435 congressional districts in the House of Representatives to represent the interests of the citizens.   The Senate represents states. Each state is allotted two senators by Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution (50 states x 2 senators = 100 senators).  

The 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives together make up the bicameral legislature that together are called the United States Congress.   Additionally, the District of Columbia is allocated three Electors through the 23^rd Amendment to the Constitution.  Total electors therefore are 538 resulting in the requirement that a presidential candidate obtain over half, or 270 electors, to win a presidential election.

Who will win in 2020? - syllables and follicles may tell

Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper will not be president – bet on it.  Only one person with a four syllable last name was ever elected president (and he was a five star general national hero) and the trend is toward fewer syllables.  Former Maryland Representative John Delaney will not be president – bet on it.  Delaney is bald.   We very rarely elect bald presidents.

Prognosticating about the 2020 election is well underway.  Much of it is based on anecdotal evidence.  As the readers of the Liberty Takes Effort blog know - facts and analysis dominate here.  The above predictions are based on statistical analysis of historic patterns.  Syllables and follicles do not appear to have been analyzed as a predictor of presidential contest outcomes in the past.

Reading last week of Hickenlooper’s presidential candidacy one might think, “no one with that name will ever be elected president.”   That conclusion is supported by analysis of past president names.   Cultural and ethnic biases toward this modified German-origin name are not at issue.  Rather, it is the number of syllables of this lengthy last name. 

Constructing a table with the names of all past presidents one discovers that only one president has ever had a last name of more than three syllables (Dwight Eisenhower).   In fact, the majority were two syllable last names.   This insight deserved further analysis.

Two syllable first names also dominate throughout presidential history.   Looking at both the last and first names of presidents one discovers that over 70% of presidents had three or four syllable first and last name combinations, but most prominent are two syllable first and last name combinations.