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.”
The intent of the American Founders was undoubtedly to allow illegal aliens to illegally cross the border and bear children who would enjoy “birthright citizenship” and the Founders intended to manipulate the census to accumulate evermore parasitic foreign communist voters to nullify their Constitution and Bill of Rights and forcibly impose the Communist Manifesto.
Oh, —- yes! That’s exactly what the Founders intended.
If two illegal aliens have a child here, while those illegal aliens may be subject to the laws of the United States they are ultimately subject to the jurisdiction of the country they came from and that is the country that they can get a passport from.
Minor children have no legal recognition and belong to their parents. So, for example if both parents were here illegally from France and had a child they would be ultimately subject to the jurisdiction of France because that’s where they could get passports and thus the child would be ultimately subject to the jurisdiction of France because he could get password there due to his parents. And therefore the child is a citizen of France and to not the United States of America.
The protection of our right and the benefits we received from our elected government of and ought to be reserved for United States Citizens.
I’m pretty sure that if I’m in Spain I’m not going to be extended the all of the same rights that Spanish citizens receive in their country nor am I going to be eligible for free medical care… Because I’m not a Spanish citizen.
So if you want the same rights and benefits as an American citizen become an American citizen. You have no right to expect ANYTHING from us if you’re an illegal immigrant.
And when you do become an American citizen feel free to practice your speech and your native cultural holidays as such in your own home or in your own neighborhood but do not expect the rest of American culture to have to recognize and conform to your former culture or do you have to recognize your language. Learn English.
And you will learn as an American citizen that you can practice your religion however you want as long as your religion does not violate the civil Rights guaranteed to an American citizen who happens to be the same religion as you.
Sorry for going on a rant guys
As I said a few days ago, a constitutional amendment is needed: districts must be contiguous and as compact as possible. Forget respect for political subdivisions, or the least-change metric, where states try and preserve districts even when their number of congressmen change. Those are not needed. We already have the requirement from Scotus that districts be the same population. Just add to that contiguity and maximum compactness, and then nobody can cheat.
“districts must be contiguous and as compact as possible”
And of equal number of citizens, But a constitutional amendment is not needed as the Constitution’s Election Clause gives Congress the power to set the regulations for defining congressional districts and they did so in the past.
Good point. An act of Congress is much more likely than a constitutional amendment. I’m glad you mentioned it.
*. I agree olesmithy if it remains. Two reps and two senators from each State suffices. The size of gov continues to grow. There is absolutely nothing contributed by the current Reps. Pass the Bill then find out what’s in it.
Limit the size of congress as the Executive is deleting unneeded cabinet departments. States can tax and spend as they vote. The success of States is completely dependent upon Governors and how are they meeting and communicating with Senators and Reps now? Not at all? The reason Arkansas is so poor? Calif is exporting 70% of its almond crop? Is the domestic market glutted with calif almonds lowering prices? No, were importing cheap almonds. It’s all whacky.
The Democrats position on gerrymandering is proof that if Democrats did not live by a double standard, they would have no standards at all.
Does anyone know how this turned out ?????
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-police-in-the-nazi-state
Yes. We do know how it turned out.
How about we skip 1934-1945 and get straight to the Nuremberg part.
If you’re curious about what happened, head on over to the Holocaust Museum.
It’s in D.C.
Get there before it gets boarded up.
Or renamed Trump’s Fun House…
Ask any German alive in 1946 how this all worked out.
Would be nice if it ended the same way Hitler ended it..
Any way we can fast forward to the suicide in the bunker scene?
Replying to yourself is LAME!
The Nuremberg part couldn’t come fast enough.
“Does anyone know how this turned out ?????”
Eventually the Allies and the Soviets defeated the National Socialists. Did you flunk 8th grade history again?
OOOH I get it now, Trump is Hitler. Wow, you’re very original. I’ve never heard that like every freaking day for the last ten freaking years. Get new material.
So you’re saying there is hope for America, its Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and its Population, that of its Founders, 1789/90?
Yeah, grow up.
Just like a hound dog with fleas. Might as well ride along with us. Hell, everybody else is.
Gerrymandering seems to violate our innate sense that districts should be reasonably compact and be constrained by geographical barriers among other things. Scientific American had an article recently that discussed compactness as well as vote efficiency: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geometry-reveals-the-tricks-behind-gerrymandering/. However the article leaves out any role for independent voters as well as swing voters (e.g. Reagan or Trump Democrats, and to be fair Harris Republicans such as Liz Cheney). But even the NYT thought that the large majority of states (40) had reasonably fair district boundaries: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/30/briefing/gerrymandering-maps-districts-republicans-democrats.html.
Dear Prof Turley,
So, to recap, the entire country is gerrymandered to favor, by hook or by crook, either the Democrats or Republicans – private political organizations with no constitutional or official authority.
And absolutely no one else .. . have I got that right?
*it should be noted in some states one has to register either Democrat or Republican to even vote!
*neither a Repub nor Demo be
For Republicans often lose,
Both debt and friend
Whilst Democrats, as always,
Dull the edge of husbandry
In which states must one be registered as a party member, D or R, to vote?
Maybe in the primaries, but that only makes sense. Why should non party members be allowed to vote in a party election?
I agree – but at the same time – why do state governments have ANYTHING to do with primaries?
The state should not pay for them, it should not run them, it should not make the rules for them.
Giving helpful advice ahead of peace talks in Alaska, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suggested on Monday that Donald J. Trump offer Vladimir Putin “full sovereignty” over the state of Florida.
“If you are considering some kind of ‘land swap’ for peace, Florida should be on the table,” Zelenskyy said. “With Florida, you have cards.”
Explaining his rationale for a Russian annexation of the Sunshine State, Zelenskyy said, “There are already so many Russian-speaking people there, especially the oligarchs and criminals around Mar-a-Lago.”
Speaking from the Kremlin, Putin said he would “consider” an offer of Florida, but only if it did not include ownership of Ron DeSantis.
Babylon Bee isn’t hiring.
They may be hiring, but only if you’re clever.
Go for it, NotSoOld!
Lin,
You could be a candidate! You have made a number of witty comments in the past!
well, thanks, but just SOMEtime. I guess that might make me a halfwit.
OldManFromKS,
Clever. Creative. Smart. Witty. A real sense of humor. None of these are attributes of the annony moron.
No, give em California! We’ll merrygermander in Puerto Rico, if that sweetens the deal.
—————————————————-
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
No! Send in the U.S. Army, clear it out, and take back California!
He should definitely consider swapping Northern Illinois or Central to Southern California (Demland).
Looks like the Colbert writers are auditioning for their new jobs. Not sure why they choose to do it here.
The People and our Posterity with specific, selective-child… uh, selective exclusion.
GEB, in his comment, states, “But you also have to resolve that illegals and non citizens have no vote or effect on proportional representation.”
I respectfully beg to differ. Indeed, Congressional representation is premised on district population, and that includes non-citizens, immigration-carded “residents,” incarcerated persons, AND illegal aliens, irrespective of their right to vote.
SCOTUS, in 2016 (Evenwel v. Abbott ) expressly upheld that states can use total populations (based on the Census) -and not just total voter population- in designing and mapping out legislative districts. I think that virtually all states do rely on total population as their method (notwithstanding that Justices Thomas and Alito made specific note that nothing requires one theory of apportionment over another).
Because of Texas’ high numbers of NON-voting-eligible “residents,” (both illegal and legal), Texas could become a real bellwether for how congressional members can end up having a say-so in national legislation,- but actually represent districts with low numbers of actual or eligible voters. -And, states can gain or lose Congressional members based on total population shifts. hmmm.
(but I do think only voters can elect electors for the Electoral college?)
Lin – don’t you think an Act of Congress is called for, which excludes people illegally in this country from counting for purposes of apportioning congressional seats?
P.S. I agree that it shouldn’t be limited to voters. For example, children under voting age should count (if they are not here illegally).
NotSoOld: totally agree with you, but in terms of practicality, I can see why legislators rely more on the simpler statistic of total population. Parsing out by class/status identities would take foe-EVA!
Lin – I think that will be put to the test soon, since President Trump has now directed that the census not include illegals. IIRC, the census is the basis for the new number of congressional districts each decade, right?
Lim and Oldman, the Court saying total population and not just voting population could mean children, legal visa and green card holders and people not registered to vote and not illegals that broke into our country.
If I am wrong about this then as Oldman said Congress can get involved. I think the compromise spot is count everyone including illegals for the purpose of knowing how many people are actually in a state but only count citizens for purposes of congressional and electoral college numbers.
Or the compromise position could be count everyone, and determine how many of those are illegals. Then the population for congressional apportionment is the total minus the illegals. That way non-citizens who are here legally (e.g., green card holders) count for apportionment purposes, but illegals don’t.
One benefit of that scheme is it would disincentivize one political party from maximizing the number of illegals in their states (e.g., California).
hullbobby and OldMan: Yes, yes, and yes. But
(1) how do we know who is here illegally-until they are caught?
I know that you are both lawyers, but for others who may read this,
(2) in the Evenwel case I cited, the Court explicitly said that “…when drawing state and local legislative districts, jurisdictions are permitted to deviate somewhat from perfect population equality to accommodate traditional districting objectives, among them, preserving the integrity of political subdivisions, maintaining communities of interest, and creating geographic compactness. See Brown v. Thomson, 462 U. S. 835 –843 (1983).” (“maintaining communities of interest” is a dangerous catch-all phrase!)
((The Plaintiff-Appellants in the Evenwel case argued that “the metric of apportionment employed by Texas (total population) results in an unconstitutional apportionment because it does not achieve equality as measured by Plaintiffs’ chosen metric—voter population.”)) Of course, the Court unequivocally rejected that only voters counted, as House Representatives, quote, “serve all residents. Nonvoters have an important stake in policy debates and in constituent services.”
Ay, there’s the rub.
There’s our problem. “Representatives serve all residents.”
Social welfare/education measures and other “constituent services”/programs are being drained of funds in states with comparative high illegal populations or non-citizen populations (like Texas), to the detriment of life-long taxpayers and contributors to those funds. Where is the “Equal Protection?”
Excluding “people illegally in this country from counting for purposes of apportioning congressional seats” means lower population numbers= less funds , while “only count[ing] citizens for purposes of congressional and electoral college numbers” still means less funds allocated AND less House seats, due to “only counting citizens,” and I would guess that not-that-many illegals or non-citizens try to vote anyway.) That means having a cherry pie cut into six slices now must feed twelve.
Soooo. The bottom line for me is, I think Trump is right.
WE MUST CUT DOWN ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION as well as update our policies/measures/laws regarding legal immigration. There must be consequence for illegal immigration. This is the primary reason I voted for Trump (it certainly wasn’t his personality, -ha ha, but then, I have dated some really good and worthy guys who had personalities like his).
I also don’t see where Trump has the authority to demand what is included in a census?
I modify my above sentence clause, ^, “but actually represent districts with low numbers of actual or eligible voters” to the following, “but actually represent districts with low numbers of actual or eligible voters, or citizens.”
I think the rule for inclusion in the census should be citizens and green card holders. Otherwise you count those here lawfully but temporarily and those here unlawfully or whose legal status is pending resolution.
The legal question is who gets to decide this. The constitution refers to people/persons. The Supreme Court could decide what that means, and then a constitutional amendment would be required to change it. Or Congress and the President could decide, by passing a law, assuming the Supreme Court didn’t overturn it as being unconstitutional. Or the President could decide through an EO, again assuming the Supreme Court did not overturn it.
The best way to get this resolved would be for Congress to pass a law. The filibuster in the Senate would likely prevent this. Should an EO is the only practical solution. The Supreme Court would then have to resolve the inevitable challenge.
Hello there Daniel- Missed you. Where ya been?:
I cited the Evenwel case because excerpts/sections (infra) from its decision outline what SCOTUS might hint at:
and address what you outline (I assume that you would define “citizens” as either voters or eligible to vote?)
“As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote. See supra, at 8–12. Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates—children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public-education system—and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies. By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total-population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation. See McCormick v. United States, 500 U. S. 257, 272 (1991) (“Serving constituents and supporting legislation that will benefit the district and individ-uals and groups therein is the everyday business of a legislator.”).
Notwithstanding, as I previously mentioned, Justices Alito and Thomas that “total population” was not the only acceptable option. I also include Footnote 3 on Pg. 4, (578 U.S. 58) which exemplifies what Alito and Thomas refer to:
The Constitutions and statutes of ten States—California, Delaware,
Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
York, and Washington—authorize the removal of certain groups from
the total-population apportionment base. See App. to Brief for Appel-
lees 1a–46a (listing relevant state constitutional and statutory provi-
sions). Hawaii, Kansas, and Washington exclude certain non-
permanent residents, including nonresident members of the military.
Haw. Const., Art. IV, §4; Kan. Const., Art. 10, §1(a); Wash. Const., Art.
II, §43(5). See also N. H. Const., pt. 2, Art. 9–a (authorizing the state
legislature to make “suitable adjustments to the general census . . . on
account of non-residents temporarily residing in this state”). Califor-
nia, Delaware, Maryland, and New York exclude inmates who were
domiciled out-of-state prior to incarceration. Cal. Elec. Code Ann.
§21003(5) (2016 West Cum. Supp.); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 29, §804A
(Supp. 2014); Md. State Govt. Code Ann. §2–2A–01 (2014); N. Y. Legis.
So what you outline is already being done.
(forgot to put Footnote 3 in quotation marks.)
“I respectfully beg to differ.”
I think you misread his sentence: ““But you also have to resolve that . . .”
It comes after a paragraph on how to fix the problem of gerrymandering. Then the “resolve that” means: Here’s another problem to be fixed — viz., that congressional representation now includes illegal aliens and non-citizens.
but I don’t think I misread it. Let’s do some logic:
1. GEB states that the current, present-day status is that “illegals and non citizens have no vote or effect on proportional representation.”
2. I think that this is an incorrect statement (as to current effect on district apportionment). Whether GEB wants to change or “resolve” that is irrelevant. I speak only to his statement.
3. Even if it were a correct statement, the way to “resolve” would mean to change from “no effect” to “give effect” [of illegals and non citizens] on proportional representation. They already have “effect,” as I point out.
no more, no less. hope that makes sense.
thanks, Sam.
p.s. notice the totality/union in the clause, “have no vote or effect on proportional representation.”
only one is true.
“but I don’t think I misread it.”
I surrender.
At best, it’s an awkward sentence. And I wouldn’t go to the gallows over my interpretation of it.
Hey Sam, if GEB said what you think, mathematics dictate that you “resolve” the equation before you by finding and presenting a solution. GEB said that we “have to resolve that illegals and non citizens have no vote or effect on proportional representation.”
Maybe that was not what he meant, but that is what he said.
Hate to sound like a doomer, but I don’t see how one can live eternally with Democrats like this. Sooner or later, they’ll put your back against the wall. That’s why a lot of people are already feeling forced to leave blue states.
I hope most voters understand this, but they too often figure things out too late.
*. Most have left the country. That left the poor and infirm for the ovens, Dio. 😏
@Diogenes
Same here. They are antithetical to everything this country is. I don’t know what the solution is but to continue to call them out, vote them out, and marginalize their idiocy. And even still somehow, those people fleeing blue states vote for the same damn people, it appears to be a form of mind blindness. It’s madness.
Diogenes,
My sister is a traditional JFK Democrat. Joined her local Democrat chapter. She said about 90% were of the traditional JFK Democrats and want to see the party get back to it’s roots of being a traditional JFK party. The other 10% said her thinking was “wrong” and she needed to get on the progressive agenda.
Just like the establishment Republicans, Never Trumpers were forced on to the MAGA agenda, Democrats are going to have to force the progressives out of their party.
When a party no longer represents the voters, the voters have the right to vote for someone else or another party who does represents the voters values and interests.
@Usptate
Forgive me, I do not intend any disrespect, but if she thinks JFK democrats are still a thing, then that is the problem right there. Trump would have BEEN considered a JFK democrat during those times. That confusion isn’t on us, it’s on them, and we can’t wait around for them to have an awakening. Many of us have said it many times: these people still think they are voting for JFK in 2025 because they have paid attention to nothing whatsoever for 30, 40, 50, even 60 years (‘Vote blue, no matter who!’). 🤷🏻♂️ And they presume to educate the rest of us. Sorry, but, no. Just, no.
James Carville strategy:
Use a fishing pole, hook up a $100 dollar bill and drag it through a trailer park.
Watch all the trailer trash that gets reeled in.
Unfortunately, as we’ve seen in the “gerrymandering” process, it is not the “trailer trash” that is being deceived, it is the wannabees. If you were really interested in who the lead ruling oligarchy/autocrats claiming “democracy” are, just study the dark money (e.g. OSF [propaganda, judicial tyranny], Arabella Advisors, ActBlue, . . . or even better, just look at the Bezos invite list to the Venice wedding.
The influenced are the wannabees who think that if they ingratiate themselves with the A-List progressives, they will become part of the A-List. If they really had realistic logical and knowledge capabilities, they would study what happened to the Bolsheviks, Udarniks, and those who obtained Kremlin nearby apartments – and be prepared for the train ride to the Gulags and their faces photoshopped from history.
In other words, they are what the Soviets used to call “useful idiots.”
The reason behind division in America is manifested by classification/grouping of desired subordinate individuals using connotative hatred.
It is undertaken and achieved primarily by narcissistic, domineering individuals and accomplished by classification/grouping “others” as having characteristics which can then be used to demean and dominate them.
The accuser is practicing bigotry, not the accused. The true narcissist is the cultural bigot using narcissistic behavior to attack the “classified/grouped” individual(s)!! (Another example is the domineer’s act of narcissism accusing another of being a “narcissist”).
Culturally, this is accepted. And in its acceptance, the self-empowered domineering overseer figures are those whose action classifies or groups and effectively cultivates hatred. (example: “Because you are not a DEI qualified individual, you are therefore one of the bigoted classified individuals even if you are consciously unaware of your bigotry”).
Surprisingly, the accusatory process is not even considered or judged relatively – only the successful desired result. This process is the mechanism for exploitation using exactly whatever the “others” are being accused of – to achieve desired result.
This form of behavior has, in the last 16 years, been unbelievably effective in America and is stunningly so today.
*. I probably agree with you but your writing is very difficult to understand. Fyi
Our 10 Year Plan
Actually the DNC has been busy in the boiler room for a long time.
There’s no longer an “off season” in redistricting. Redistricting is a crucial part of the fight to protect democracy, and it is ongoing. If we do not stay diligent, we will lose the progress towards fairness for which we have fought so hard.
We know that with our battle-tested strategy and team, we can protect the fair maps we have achieved, fight the ongoing attempts to gerrymander, and be ready for the redistricting fights ahead. But we can’t do it alone. We need the ongoing support and commitment of others who also want to protect our democracy.
Whist we be contemplating ‘Gerrymandering’, it is the Electoral College that should be on the Chopping Block.
“Whist we be contemplating ‘Gerrymandering’, it is the Electoral College that should be on the Chopping Block.”
What would you propose, direct election of president and vice president? Our federal system is a collection of states, not individuals. Direct elections would break that compact. I also doubt that you could get the necessary constitutional amendment passed.
So, if we’re not going to have direct elections, then what? You still have a electoral system based on states. And, as no two states are equal, you have to figure out some way of apportioning the power of states. Suddenly you wind up with something that will look a lot like our current electoral college. Funny that. Maybe the founders weren’t so dumb after all.
@Anonymous
Ah, another idiotic talking point that favors the left. Be honest: you didn’t even know what gerrymandering was until Texas decided to do it and you got your bullet points. I doubt even now that you fully grasp the Electoral college. You are absurd, and everyone thinks so. But keep lighting those dollars on fire, your employers. And stop ‘liking’ your own comments. It’s a bad look.
Gerrymandering started in Boston Massachusetts over 200 years ago. You might know where all these shenanigan’s started.
The democratic/dictatorial duality.
That said, all’s fair in lust and abortion, a wicked solution.
Professor Turley,
You write: “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.”
This is not accurate. There is plenty to critique about Obama on the hypocrisy front, but Obama has spoken plenty about the ills of gerrymandering, including attacking his own party for doing so in Illinois and other states. Please revise your statement.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/illinois-democrats-ignore-obama-on-gerrymandering-11619213853?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAiZW13-NwMVmKb6J4yX5OfQlVwHMz-6er5RxWRRPXSHLOhfPevBsG-GEuASgWI%3D&gaa_ts=6899fa3e&gaa_sig=1w3CXfYZX4zxrVDp0n9RFjKvfGA0B9rLiRPmKSu1CY_YPd9jXOAeT05qP7yQ1PAEPmk3vJd4LpQiYrhmtDtETw%3D%3D
Please, Obama says one thing today, another thing tomorrow, as needed. Look up the position record on the Senate filibuster, which changed as needed based on who controlled the chamber. Shocking!!
Granted. However even if that is true, it still makes Turley comment patently false
Given the context, is the professor wrong? When did the Democrats implement their gerrymander of Illinois? Did Obama speak out about it when it was happening? That’s how I read the original statement, anyway. It’s easy to bemoan the results after the fact, and yet Obama still did nothing positive about it.
YES he did. Read the WSJ link.
I don’t have a subscription. Even if what you say is true, somehow I doubt that he called for states like Illinois to redistrict in order to get more Republican house members. Obama did nothing but spew hot air, as usual.
Note: The above ‘attack’ from the when King Obama was in the Illinois State Senate – 1997 to 2004 and 5 years before the cited gerrymandering occurred. Obviously Emperor Emeritus Obama has changed his attitude and now stands fully in support of Empirical Autocracy and Tyranny and Molotov cocktails into the White House under the support of “inclusion” — Kristallnacht in the streets, and the use of the Secret Police to attack those he feels should be in “re-education” camps. Besides, if one declares your hands will always be clean, no one will ever look at them for blood. Clearly, this “I’m Shocked” citation is more applicable based on now emerging actual actions:
https://youtu.be/SjbPi00k_ME
Again, I agree that he is a hypocrite. I even acknowledged it above. That being said, what Turley said (i.e., that Obama has “said nothing” is still empirically false. For those who care about accuracy, they should be appalled at the use of erroneous hyperbole. It took me two seconds to confirm my suspicion – that Obama has in fact said SOMETHING about this topic. In reality, he has actually criticized his own party for doing this very thing.
I know that some will disagree with me, but my beef is the CONSTANT reference to “our democracy.” We are NOT a democracy. The dangers and harms identified by the good professor are precisely included in the dangers and harms our founding fathers warned against, and the reasons they instead formed a democratic Republic: they expressly warned against populist MOB RULE (and therefore, ephemeral and subject to whims)–most often subject to the control and/or MANIPULATION of information going to the public by the LOUDEST voices.
We are still a republic, barely, but “progressives” have been fighting to move us towards a democracy for well over a century. The founders studied history and recognized the danger of democracies, but “progressives” are just so much smarter. Ask them, they’ll tell you.
Amen. I worry over who is teaching our students what? Clearly the “progressives” are in control, and I suspect MUCH of important history is left by the wayside.
“The United States is both a republic and a democracy because it combines elements of both systems: it has elected representatives who make decisions on behalf of the people (republic) and allows citizens to vote in elections, thereby exercising their political power (democracy). This dual structure ensures that the government is accountable to the people while also being bound by the rule of law.”
constitutingamerica org -republic-or-democracy-classical-history-republican-governing-as-adopted-united-states-american-revolutionary-war-guest-essayist-jay-mcconville
actact represent us/sign/democracy-republic
I am not sure if Mr. Turley allows hyperlinks so I left the dots out.
It’s a matter of understanding the words. A republic means not ruled by a sovereign especially an inherited one. A king, Tsar, Emperor, or a Sultan. Noting more. We are a representative republic, or constitutional republic. How do we pick those representatives? Through free and fair elections (supposedly). We are not a true or pure democracy, but a limited democracy with checks and balances like a Constitution, Bill of Rights, electoral college and one man one vote. A republic’s leader can be an Elected president, an appointed leader or a strongman that grabbed power. That leader can be a religious leader (theocracy), a dictator (dictatorship) or an elected leader (democracy). China is a republic, the old USSR was a republic, Russia is a republic, Iran is republic, North Korea is a republic (doubtful after three generations of one family rule) none of those are Democracies. All but Iran are dictatorships, and Iran is theocracy (dictatorship).
We are a republic because when the US won independence from England some people wanted to make George Washington the king. Washington wisely turned that down. Remember our first government under the Artilces of Confederation was a republic, but not a full democracy.
“The United States was not a full democracy under the Articles of Confederation; it established a weak central government with limited powers, and each state had significant autonomy. The system was more of a confederation where states retained most of their sovereignty, leading to challenges in governance and representation.
Delegates from States: Each state appointed delegates to the Congress of the Confederation. The number of delegates per state could vary, but each state had one vote in Congress, regardless of the number of delegates.
President of Congress: The Congress elected a President, but this role was largely ceremonial and did not carry significant executive power. The President served a one-year term and could not serve consecutive terms.
Some states held elections, while others simply appointed their representatives.”
What you are saying is an orange is a fruit so it can’t be a citrus! One tells us the type of government, the other how we pick our leaders. People get hung up on the words republic and democracy because our two major parties have chosen those two words to name their parties and party loyalty and ignorance keeps people believing false beliefs.
You can go on insisting we are not a democracy, but you are wrong.
(did you happen to notice that I used the term that our founders EXPRESSLY established a “democratic Republic” over a pure democracy?)
“The modern characterization of the United States as a ‘democracy’ misrepresents the Founders’ deliberate and vocal rejection of direct democratic governance. While they believed in consent of the governed, they despised democracy in its purest form—where political decisions are made directly by the majority, unchecked by institutional brakes or constitutional structure. https://danafharbaugh.substack.com/p/why-the-founders-despised-democracy:
James Madison, Federalist No. 10:
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property…”
John Adams:
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”
Alexander Hamilton, Constitutional Convention (1787):
“Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.”
John Adams, Thoughts on Government (1776):
“There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
Hamilton, in Federalist No. 68:
“The process of election affords a moral certainty… that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
Benjamin Franklin:
“A republic—if you can keep it.”
Neither you nor I can resolve this political game of semantics, but I make this peace offering:
a “republican democracy” cannot be proven to be untrue, any more than a “democratic Republic” can be.
yours truly, lin.
(I am addressing your (Anonymous) final sentence to me, “You can go on insisting we are not a democracy, but you are wrong.”
thanks
You are cherrypicking Federalist Papers. You cannot engage in an honest discussion of the framers’ intent with respect to the formation of districts without examining No. 57. See below. As Madison reflected during this period, a Republic without democracy, would simply become an aristocracy or oligarchy.
-doesn’t matter if I cherry picked. The bottom line is that the Founders CONCLUDED to EXPRESSLY REJECT a pure democracy and instead solidify a representative Republic as the final form of government.
(I readily acknowledge that STATES often provide direct voting on “issues.)”
THERE is considerable rejection of the notion that U.S. House Representatives are “direct proxies” of their constituents, and must vote as a majority of their constituents direct them to.
PROOF of that conclusion is that voters CANNOT change the vote of a House Representative; -they can only vote him out of office. He/she is trusted only to vote with their best interests in mind.
See the difference?
A “pure democracy” doesn’t exist – (it didn’t exist in Ancient Greece, and it has never existed anywhere), and it is a logical fallacy (called a false dilemma) to assume that democracy and a republic are mutually exclusive.
Again, no one is suggesting that House representatives must vote as a majority of their constituents direct them to. This is yet another logical fallacy (straw man).
I have no idea what you are getting at with the last point. If voters no longer have the ability to vote a Representative out of office, then the whole concept of a democratic republic fails. Let’s take an extreme example – If hypothetical State X passes a law that says that the only people on the ballot can be the individuals currently in office, then the voters no longer have the ability to “vote him out of office.”
You have to have democratic guardrails to ensure the institutions of democratic republicanism are not eroded. Otherwise, as Madison said, you have an aristocracy or oligarchy.
I have concluded that your only purpose here is to try and take me down because all of your objections are to propositions or arguments THAT I DID NOT MAKE.
(e.g, your latest: “to assume that democracy and a republic are mutually exclusive.”)
I repeat my earlier olive branch in peace: Neither you nor I can resolve this political game of semantics, but I make this peace offering:
a “republican democracy” cannot be proven to be untrue, any more than a “democratic Republic” can be.
Lin,
The framers were explicitly against Representatives drawing the boundaries of their own districts. This was (correctly) perceived as antithetical to the republican cause, as it would only serve the interests of the incumbents.
Check out Federalist No. 57. Madison writes: “The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend from the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.
The framers of the Constitution genuinely feared that representatives could perpetuate themselves in office by changing the rules of the game. Indeed, the Supreme Court cited that fear in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, to show that individual states could not add to the qualifications fixed in the Constitution for holding congressional office.
Two statements made during the framers’ debate over the qualifications clause (both were quoted by the Court in Thornton) illustrate this viewpoint. Hugh Williamson, a delegate from North Carolina, expressed the fear that if Congress was composed of “any particular description of men, of lawyers for example….future elections might be secured to their own body.” In the same debate, Madison noted, « a Republic may be converted into an aristocracy or oligarchy as well by limiting the number capable of being elected, as the number authorized to elect.”
Thus, an appeal to our republican institutional structure cannot justify gerrymandering, nor can an appeal to the founding fathers.
Nothing that you said, nor in No. 57, nor in your argument that “our republican institutional structure cannot justify gerrymandering,” has anything to do with what I said. Accordingly, it appears that your effort is directed at taking me down with things that I didn’t even say or imply (I don’t recall saying anything in support of gerrymandering?) thanks anyway.
I was responding to your plea that we are “not a democracy” in a comment thread about gerrymandering. It is a complete straw man to define democracy as a simple majoritarian rule, as it seems you have.
And the implication in a comment thread to an article about gerrymandering is that efforts to make our officials less representative of their constituents’ beliefs is not problematic because simple majoritarian democracy does not exist in this country.
A democratic republic, as the Founders understood it (and as Federalist 57 clarifies), requires the democracy to function. Specifically, the Founders predicted exactly what we see now – that if representatives get to draw the district lines, they will ensure the end of the republic. It will become an aristocracy or oligarchy, as Madison put it.
So, YES, our government is a form of democracy, as I hope everyone would have learned in grade school.
Your last sentence, “So, YES, our government is a form of democracy, as I hope everyone would have learned in grade school.”
Read aloud, below, “..a specific form of republic”
“The US operates as a representative democracy, -a specific form of republic, where citizens elect individuals to make decisions on their behalf. These representatives operate within the bounds of the Constitution, ensuring governance is responsive to the people and adheres to established legal principles. The republican form of government emphasizes that power ultimately resides with the citizenry, exercised through structured representation and constitutional limitations.”
https://legalclarity.org/is-the-us-a-constitutional-democracy/
you operate like georgie.
thank you for your quote from “legalclarity.org.”
When you’re in a hole just stop digging…
Bravo Lin Bravo!
*. Look at the caliber of Reps and Senators. They vote in blocks incapable of thought, pass bills they can’t read while bureaucrats run the place. The Founders presumed quality elections? The mob has become the congress and judiciary. The Executive Branch has mob employment in the millions.
Congress consists of literal clowns wearing their cowboy hats and playing to the mob for votes while filling their pockets. The “Foundations ” are the current laundromat.
The Democrats appear not to want us to be either democratic nor a republic.
Interesting discussion today. Just about everybody is named anonymous so it sounds like a screaming argument as people jump on the soapbox, screech, then get replaced with another screech and on and on and nobody knows who is who. It’s almost like arguing with yourself and losing. Gerrymandering is as old as legislatures. There have been rows in the UK and in Canada in years gone by about district lines.
The Supreme Court could declare, in a chosen case, that gerrymandering is not equal protection under the law. The People then could push the states to request a constitutional convention (2/3 agreeing) to deal with gerrymandering. If the states force it congress has to call a constitutional convention. They could come up with a proposed amendment that could be ratified by state constitutional conventions. The legislatures could be bypassed in that scenario.
It would take organization and outrage to force the entire process. I would support that because this point/counterpoint about who can gerrymander more is ridiculous and wastes time, money and political capital. Failure to resolve it risks a disgruntled people who will believe no one and then follow no one.
But you also have to resolve that illegals and non citizens have no vote or effect on proportional representation. Citizenship does matter and flooding the country with illegals defeats the spirit and intent of the law and destroys the concept a common community and culture. Gerrymandering is a symptom of the real disease we’re dealing which is worse and is basically power at any cost.
“nobody knows who is who…. It’s almost like arguing with yourself and losing. ” Wait a sec, who you are you then, just another anon but with only 3 letters in the moniker.
PS You’re the old guy who thinks the Guardian is trash because its a British publication? For an anon who espouses pure democracy, you sure are not democratic.
“You’re the old guy who thinks the Guardian is trash because its a British publication”
No, he questioned the paper’s demonstrated ties to the British Labour party. Last I checked, the Labour Party is not Britain. Why are you so bad at basic reading comprehension?
Good one GEB. Nothing like trying to be anonymous.
Not GEB, and I see that you don’t even bother trying to dispute that you were wrong. I’ll take that as an admission, however. Toodles!
“dispute that you were wrong”. WTF does that mean?
You were wrong. You did not dispute that you were wrong. Wow, you really have lousy reading comprehension, don’t you? Have you considered retaking the third grade yet another time?
Refute refutation?
Neither the word refute nor any variation appear in the comment. Again, do you know that you have a terrible reading comprehension problem? Are your teachers and your parents aware of this? Have you been tested for dyslexia?
Just for clarity – please stop disinformation:
The Labour Party, often referred to as Labour, is a political party in the United Kingdom that sits on the centre-left of the political spectrum. The party has been described as an alliance of social democrats, democratic socialists and trade unionists. It is one of the two dominant political parties in the United Kingdom; the other being the Conservative Party.
It’s a language processing problem. Not all words are read because the brain glitches. The repair is reading a passage several times or using a highlighter. Read for nouns, then adjectives, them verbs etc.
< "Interesting discussion today. Just about everybody is named anonymous so it sounds like a screaming argument as people jump on the soapbox, screech, then get replaced with another screech and on and on and nobody knows who is who."
It's a lot like listening to Congress. People no one ever heard of; seldom anyone recognized as someone you or your friends voted for, or lives anywhere near you and may well have lied on their mortgage and doesn't even live in your state to begin with. And all of them proudly shouting non-sense a plenty along with a healthy dose of decorum. Just as JT pointed out, with their hypocrisy on steroids. So not to be left out of the daily Congressional kinder care or the JT blog ambassadorial summit think tanks; but what's all the hub-bub about those pesky anon's. Yes it's a bit confusing as to who said what, and when, or where, but in the final analysis none of that matters. No one attains salvation by using a registered moniker on the Turley blog. Ain't gonna happen. And besides, it's more legacy this way. No one ever signs the quips, slogans, and poems on the back of the public restroom stall doors. I even went so far as to create a signature line which many forums offer when you do sign up. This site allows for more creativity with less spam. And I'm the only one using one! Can't be more identifiable than that. Why all the genocide against anons?
————————————————
–Oddball
"Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings."
Thanks GEBnonymous.
GEB,
Generally it is just best to scroll past the various anonys. Most of the time they are not worth reading.
“What is missing in any of this is any sense of shame.” One can not feel shame until he/she/ze has integrity, professor.