Below is my column in The Hill on open hypocrisy of many denouncing the Texas redistricting effort. While I have been a critic of gerrymandering for decades, the faux outrage of Democrats in heavily gerrymandered states would make Captain Louis Renault blush.
Here is the column:
Former diplomat and Democratic senator Adlai Stevenson once remarked that “a hypocrite is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” If so, this week in politics was nothing but the worst form of stump speeches.
In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) declared that the move by Texas Republicans to redistrict mid-decade was a “legal insurrection of our U.S. Capitol.”
In Texas, Democratic State Rep. Jolanda Jones (D) must have felt “insurrection” did not quite capture the infamy. Instead, she insisted, “I will liken this to the Holocaust.”
Others repeated the Democratic mantra that it was the death of democracy. That includes former President Barack Obama, who had said nothing when Democrats made his own state the most gerrymandered in the union.
In Illinois, surrounded by Texas legislators who had fled their state to prevent a legislative quorum, Gov. JB Pritzker (D) bellowed that gerrymandering was an attempt to “steal” congressional seats and to “disenfranchise people.”
It did not matter that the stump Pritzker and Texas Democrats were standing on in Chicago is located in the most gerrymandered state in the country. The redistricting law, signed by Pritzker left Republicans with just three of the state’s 17 congressional seats, even though they won nearly half the votes in the last election.
What is missing in any of this is any sense of shame. The most telling moment came when Pritzker went on the Stephen Colbert’s show on CBS — a show that offered him a reliably supportive audience and a long track record of 86 percent of jokes slamming conservatives or Republicans.
Pritzker received roaring cheers when he said that he was protecting democracy from Texas gerrymandering. Colbert then showed him the map of Illinois, which features ridiculously shaped, snaking districts that stretch across the state — all drawn to maximize Democratic performance in elections. Pritzker just shrugged and joked how they had kindergarteners design it. Colbert and the audience laughed uproariously.
So let’s recap. Pritzker had just declared gerrymandering a threat to democracy. He followed up by making a joke of his own unparalleled gerrymandering. The New York audience cheered both statements.
Some of the outrage by Democrats seemed part of a comedy routine. In Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey pledged to retaliate by gerrymandering her heavily gerrymandered state. The problem? It is already so badly gerrymandered that there are no Republican House members in the state — there haven’t been any since the 1990s.
We have reached the point in our age of rage where one’s hypocrisy can be openly acknowledged but then dismissed with a chuckle.
It is not cheap to lock Republicans out completely in heavily Democratic states. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) quickly pledged to order a new round of gerrymandering in a state where Republicans constituted roughly 40 percent of the congressional vote in 2024 but received only about 17 percent of the House seats. To reduce the Republicans to near zero would require passage of a ballot proposition, costing more than $200 million, even as California faces a budget crisis and a deficit greater than $20 billion.
And that may prove to be just a fraction of the true cost.
In response to the gerrymandering, Democratic strategist James Carville seemed to call for what Texas State House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu (who fled to Illinois) described as “launching nukes at each other.”
Carville insisted that once the Democrats retake power, they should “unilaterally add Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as states” and pack the Supreme Court to guarantee that the Republicans can never win again.
He is not the first Democrat to openly advocate such a plan. In an October 2020 interview, Harvard law professor Michael Klarman explained how Democrats needed to use their power to enact “democracy-entrenching legislation,” which would ensure that “the Republican Party will never win another election.”
Perhaps you can appreciate the unintended humor there. But Professor Klarman noted that Democrats would still have to gain control of the Supreme Court to make such legislation stick.
What is striking about the Carville interview is that he was describing rigging both the legislative and judicial branches, all in the name of democracy. Carville admitted that “in isolation,” each of these ideas may be objectionable and open “Pandora’s box.” However, when done together, they somehow become acceptable. It is akin to saying that burning a home is arson, but torching a city is urban renewal.
Nevertheless, Carville declared: “If you want to save democracy, I think you got to do all of those things because we just are moving further and further away from being anything close to democracy.”
Again, no one listening to such unhinged ranting would fail to see the hypocrisy. What is chilling is that no one really cares. You can stack the Supreme Court and the Congress. You can gerrymander legislative and congressional maps. You can even engage in ballot cleansing by barring Republican and third-party candidates from elections. You can do all of that and still claim to be righteously defending democracy.
You can even commit the most venal acts as a form of virtue signaling … even though there is not a scintilla of virtue in what you are saying.
There may be one benefit to Carville and his counterparts in opening up Pandora’s Box. In the story, Pandora released an array of evils on the world, including sorrow, disease, vice, violence, greed, madness, old age, and death. However, few recall the last thing to escape the jar and perhaps the thing that the vengeful Zeus least wanted humanity to have: hope.
It is possible that citizens will finally get fed up listening to these self-righteous hypocrites and join together to end gerrymandering once and for all. Rather than yield to our rage, reason could still prevail in this country in barring or at least limiting partisan redistricting. When we do that, these clear-cutting politicians will not have a stump to stand on.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
At large elections for US House seats.
No primaries, party designation not on the ballot. To gain ballot access require a $10,000 filing fee and the collection of 2000 signatures of registered voters from each party from 2/3 of the number of counties in a State. We already have statewide elections for Governor, attorney general, auditor, treasurer and US Senate so election offices should have no logistical concerns setting up a ballot
In PA, we have 17 REPRESENTATIVES and 67 counties
As many people as qualify for the ballot by getting 2,000 signatures each from 45 counties and pays the filing fee gets on. Ballot position based on total number of counties above 45 that the candidate has received required number of signatures.
Each voter can sign 17 petitions. One of the columns beside the listed name would say delete. If ballot was scanned with more than 17 votes it would be split back out of the scanner and the voter would be given the option to blacken several of the ovals that say delete until he’s down to 17. Should be easy to set up.
First objection would be voters would be too stupid and confused to vote for 17 especially if there were 30 names on the ballot. But then again I have seen referendum and constitutional amendment questions that have taken half a page to read and were totally impossible to comprehend.
Second objection is that companies that make huge amounts of money from doing Federal primaries would lose income.
Third objection would be complaints from the major parties that voters would need to be educated about candidates positions on issues rather than party affiliation and thus party control.
Forth objection would be damn, how can I as a congressman make sure I’m one of 17 that is elected term after term after term. (An interesting way to look at term limits with no need to pass legislation to limit terms)
Fifth objection (from the big cities). This would make it harder to ensure that 65 rural and suburban counties in PA ( the example state here) are enslaved by the needs of Philadelphia County and Allegheny County. (Pittsburgh).
Sixth objection. How could a congressman be expected to represent the needs of an entire state instead of just a district. I don’t know, ask a senator.
7th objection: we have to give up the ability to germander for a party or race or for whatever needs gerrymandering is needed because I would no longer be needed.
8th objection: Constitution demands we re-District every 10 years according to a census. But we know that the constitution does not speak about redistricting, it speaks about reapportionment according to population. The requirement that we have districts is a law passed by Congress and it is law that can be un-passed by Congress.
ANYWAY, JUST MIND EXPERIMENT
Democratic whistleblower told FBI that Adam Schiff approved classified leaks to target Trump
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democratic-whistleblower-told-fbi-adam-schiff-approved-classified-leaks-target-trump
Let’s see if this goes anywhere. Why did the FBI take a pass on this info. Were they perhaps trying to “get Trump”? What about Merrick Garland. We know he is the most corrupt attorney general in American history. Did he know about this?
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor(lie).
If you like your Nation, you’re going to have to fight like hell to keep your Nation. Trump is leading the charge
The mayor of Washington DC suggested on Monday that the best way for Donald J. Trump to empty the streets of homeless people in the nation’s capital would be to throw himself another birthday parade.
“You want to see people clear out?” Muriel Bowser said to reporters. “Get a bunch of those squeaky old tanks rolling down the streets and you won’t see anyone for miles.”
“Not to take anything away from the National Guard,” she added. “But in terms of getting people to vanish, nothing in history has come close to President Trump’s parade.”
At the White House, press secretary Karoline Leavitt blasted the mayor’s plan, arguing, “Far from making people leave the city, a birthday parade would only make them fall asleep, like Melania.”
This kind of writing is why Colbert got cancelled. You suck at comedy.
Is that what that was?
Put the homeless in Alligator Alcatraz and send them some food now and then.
If you think Gerrymandering is bad, take a look at this compulsory redistribution of wealth and social engineering:
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” under the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
IS
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
How can this be?
Communist slogans perfectly describe American programs, benefits, laws, agencies, and departments.
Communism is the antithesis of freedom and self-reliance, right?
America can’t have all these communist programs, benefits, laws, agencies, and departments because America is not communist.
Or is it?
The judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, should have struck down all of these programs, benefits, laws, agencies, and departments at their inception.
My problem with arguments like this is if Illinois wasn’t gerrymandered then democrats wouldn’t be hypocrites and nothing else would change. As if democrats never gerrymandered all of the sudden Republicans would support ending it.
Where is the responsibility? How we got here? How it can change? Why certain politicians haven’t supported ending gerrymandering despite vast public support to?
Instead all you get is pointless ragebaiting that leads to nothing except angry people.
That’s why there should be a national ban. Contiguous, maximally-compact, equal-population districts should be the rule in all 50 states.
It would be easy to prove a map illegal: simply offer one with better compactness. As olesmithy pointed out below, this could be done by Congress, you don’t need a constitutional amendment.
In retrospect, I am not certain that ridding us of gerrymandering does much to alter the political complexion of a district. Think of Minnesota. When I was a kid, you pictured Upper Midwest states as pure white bread: rural, conservative, Red, etc. But birds of a feather….seek each other out. The growing Somali population in Minnesota has altered its landscape-and voting.
in the same way that Florida’s (a very Red state when I was in my teens) Hispanics have now taken over large areas of the state, likewise, people move toward their “communities of interest,” as SCOTUS defines.
Although alterations may take longer, there is nothing stopping intentional, purportful politically-motivated relocation to another state in order to collectively alter the complexion of a voting district– MANY STATES ONLY REQUIRE A
30-DAY RESIDENCY TO VOTE. “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.”
Quite right and there isn’t interstate voter registration? The rolls aren’t purged of deceased persons nor the relocated.
Lin – I think that getting rid of partisan gerrymandering would be a helpful step even if it doesn’t solve every problem. Right now each side gerrymanders and the other side feels cheated. There is no social benefit to gerrymandering, it only gives a partisan advantage where one can be had. To me that has little social value. If nobody could gerrymander, then the relative numbers in the House would more closely reflect the voting public as a whole, in each state’s caucus and nationwide, and lots of rancor would be avoided.
“and lots of rancor would be avoided.”
But outlawing gerrymandering will not stop the legal and expensive CHALLENGES alleging gerrymandering, any time a state legislature redraws districts. All we need is a calculatedly-timed challenge and a TRO….
n’est ce pas?
(I suppose any statutory prohibition would need to include a special tight window for filing challenges, e.g.. so many days after voters have publicized notice of district alterations/changes, and so many days before elections?
I dunno.
*. In 100 years the United States won’t be in existence. These people aren’t interested in the Constitution. There isn’t a shared morality now and many have come in from 3rd worlds. It’s mainly an interest in theft.
It’s quite hopeless. Make it simple and cheap. Cut back fed Reps and use longitude and latitude. 2 Reps each State limiting congress to 200 people. The Reps there now are low mind clowns causing trouble on the grandstand.
Slim down. It’s quite a tragedy .
Lin – I have done some redistricting work as a lawyer. The way it works is that once a map is drawn by a commission, anyone can challenge it within a set amount of time. Inevitably there are challenges. With neutral metrics such as equality-of-population and compactness, challenges are easy to resolve because the only thing necessary is a map that satisfies the metrics better. Equality of population is generally not a problem with the computer software that exists. Compactness can be measured mathematically, so that is also not much of a problem. The only thing the court would need to do is set the standard: how to judge whether one map is better than another on compactness, given the different models. And preferably the state legislature would do that, if Congress didn’t.
*. I told the story of Robert E. Lee refusing Lincoln to head the Union because he owed allegiance to his kith and kin. Same applies with foreign nationals. California doesn’t care how many laws are changed or passed. They hold other allegiance.
Same for other States. The canary in the coal mine are the Jewish people, Christians. How are they doing?
Olesmithy is correct as if they’d care or follow it. Divert their attention with American Eagle jeans or the good salacious gossip of Jeffrey Epstein and they won’t notice a war happened until the ashes.
Carpe diem
The intensity of the need for Republicans to gerrymander in Texas also says a lot about how bad the situation in the mid-terms will be for them. If they have to go to these lengths to cheat and manipulate district maps to retain their fragile hold on the house then they are in bigger trouble than they are letting on thanks to Trumps deeply unpopular policies.
They increased the national debt to $4.1 Trillion and they cut Medicaid and SNAP to keep Trump’s tax cuts to the very wealthy. Now American taxpayers are going to pay more for every day needs like groceries and durable goods because of his bad tariff policies. Republicans have effectively increased taxes on the average American and companies to pay for some of it in the form of tariffs. I was under the impression that Republicans were against tax increases and adding more debt. Former VP Dick Chaney was right. deficits don’t matter when Republicans are in office.
I’m sure everyone will be flocking to the party of abortion, illegal immigration, and tax hikes. With the 20% approval rating for Democrats, you’ll certainly have to beat back the voters with a stick!
Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HUD, Social Security, Medicare, and the rest of the “entitlements” and “benefits” for parasites of the communist American welfare state are unconstitutional.
Please provide a citation to any section of U.S. fundamental law that provides a legal basis for anything else you write; of course, you cannot.
You want Medicaid, go get a —-ing job, comrade!
Democrats have never run a budget deficit, dontcha know? And Dems have never gerrymandered, dontcha know?
Your air-headed comment is the exact kind of hypocrisy described in the above article. Go away, DNC-paid troll.
FULL LINCOLN 2.0
______________________
Proclamation 80—Calling Forth the Militia and Convening an Extra Session of Congress
“On April 15, 1861,…President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed ‘to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.’”
Proclamation 92—Warning to Rebel Sympathizers
“[On] July 17, 1862,…I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim to and warn all persons within the contemplation of said sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, or abetting the existing rebellion or any rebellion against the Government of the United States and to return to their proper allegiance to the United States on pain of the forfeitures and seizures as within and by said sixth section provided.”
________________________________________________________________________________
Abraham Lincoln was a Great American President.
Now President Donald J. Trump MUST implement his rendition of “The Lincoln Era,” close the border, rescind rebel sanctuary cities, compassionately repatriate all illegal and unassimilable aliens, revoke birthright citizenship, make English the sole official language, commence a war to defeat the rebellion, impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus, “smash” rebel printing presses, networks, podcasts, and social media platforms, and imprison political opponents and rebel judges, all in order to save, not the Union, but the Nation, eradicate the communist American welfare state, and place America squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including absolute freedom, free enterprise, free industries, free markets, private property, and minimal taxation and regulation, alongside infinitesimal constitutional government.