Tag: congressional districts
Census Data Shows (Again) Why We Need To Expand Congress

Census Data Shows (Again) Why We Need To Expand Congress

The preliminary 2020 census count has been released, and as usual, it means that when it comes to congressional representation, some states will gain and some will lose. Illinois is one of seven states that will suffer a shrinkage of their House delegations. But the zero-sum nature of this game is not a necessary feature, and it's not a good one.

The reason states are pitted against one another every 10 years is that the nation's population has steadily grown but the House has not. It has been frozen at 435 seats since 1911, even though the number of people in America has more than tripled. Back then, the typical member represented 212,000 people. Today, it's 761,000.

The current number has no basis in the Constitution. The framers meant for the House to grow over time, and it did — from 141 in 1803 to 293 in 1873 to 357 in 1893. The only constitutional limit is that there can be no more than one representative per 30,000 people. James Madison wrote confidently that "the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution."

The author of the Federalist No. 52 (either Madison or Alexander Hamilton) said that each member should have "an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people." There is nothing intimate about a relationship with 761,000 people. It may be no coincidence that only 37 percent of Americans know the name of their representative.

Some districts are physically enormous. New Mexico has one that occupies 71,000 square miles. Texas has one that stretches across 550 miles. But nothing tops the one that is the size of Alaska — because it comprises all of that state, which is 2,261 miles wide. Six other states have just one representative.

Expanding the House would mean members would be better able to serve the needs of their constituents, because they wouldn't have so many to serve. Helping people grapple with problems related to the federal government, such as getting veterans benefits or securing Paycheck Protection Program loans, makes up the bulk of what occupies congressional offices.

Less populous districts would also make it easier for members of Congress to get to know the communities and people they represent, and vice versa. It would provide fast-growing states with additional seats without depriving slower-growing states of the ones they have.

In the latest YouGov poll, only 25 percent of Americans approve of how Congress is doing its job. I know what you're thinking: If I don't like the people in Congress, why would I want more of them?

But more House seats would reduce the size of districts, making them more cohesive. Rural voters would be less likely to be lumped with distant urbanites. Minority populations would have a better chance of electing people attuned to their particular interests. Campaigns would be less expensive. Who knows? Better people might get elected.

Expanding the House would align the Electoral College more closely with public sentiment. Each state gets as many electoral votes as it has members of Congress. Increasing the number of House seats would mean more populous states would get a say in choosing the president that is more proportionate to the number of voters they have. It would reduce the grossly outsized voting strength of small states.

You might assume that a bigger House would be impossibly unwieldy. But other countries have lawmaking bodies that function well despite being much larger than ours.

The German Bundestag seats 709 people. The 650 members of Britain's House of Commons serve a country the size of Oregon. Each member represents about 100,000 people, less than one-seventh the number represented by the average U.S. House member. No other wealthy democracy has as high a ratio of citizens to national legislators as we do.

How big should the U.S. go? Under an option that says no district shall have more people than the least populous state (Wyoming, with 576,851 people), the House would grow to 545 members. An expansion on that scale would bring in a lot of fresh faces and ideas while changing the dynamics of a body that has gotten too far from the American people.

If the House had grown with the population as the framers expected, it would have 11,000 members. That would be too many. But 435 is way too few.

Steve Chapman blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman. Follow him on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Judges Strike Down Ohio’s Gerrymandered Congressional Districts

Judges Strike Down Ohio’s Gerrymandered Congressional Districts

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Of all the Rust Belt states that President Donald Trump won in 2016, Ohio was arguably the most disappointing for Democrats in the 2018 midterms two years later. Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown was reelected, but Republicans maintained 12 of the 16 seats that Ohio has in the U.S. House of Representatives. A federal court ruling on Ohio’s congressional map, however, might give Democrats some hope for 2020’s House races in the Buckeye State.

A panel of three federal judges, Roll Call reports, has struck down Ohio’s congressional map as unfairly gerrymandered. The judges ruled that Ohio must present a new map for 2020 and has given the state until June 14 to come up with one.

During the Obama years, Ohio and Michigan were among the states where Republicans were aggressive in their gerrymandering of congressional districts. Ohio’s congressional map, in 2011, was redrawn by a GOP-controlled state legislature. That map, first used in 2012, was challenged by various Democratic as well as nonpartisan organizations—and the three-judge panel found that “invidious partisan intent, the intent to disadvantage Democratic voters and entrench Republican representatives in power, dominated the map-drawing process.”

This decision follows an April 25 ruling in which a panel of three judges ruled that Michigan’s congressional map had been unfairly gerrymandered and that the state must come up with a new one for 2020. In the lawsuit challenging Michigan’s congressional map (which was drawn in 2011), the League of Women Voters and some Democratic plaintiffs argued that it gave an unfair advantage to Republicans. And the judges agreed with the lawsuit, ruling that it was wrong to “dilute the views of Democratic voters.”

Michigan, however, was generally a better state for Democrats than Ohio in 2018: despite gerrymandering, Democrats flipped two GOP-held seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Michigan’s state legislature has until August 1 to draw a new congressional map, which would be signed into law by the state’s new Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer.

IMAGE: Photo of Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) by Ohio AFL-CIO/Flickr.

 

 

Florida Legislature Leaves Town Without Drawing New Congressional Districts

Florida Legislature Leaves Town Without Drawing New Congressional Districts

By Gray Rohrer, Orlando Sentinel (TNS)

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida lawmakers adjourned their special session Friday without drawing new congressional districts, a breakdown between the Republican-led House and Senate that likely will leave the task to the courts.

Democrats immediately slammed GOP leaders for the dysfunction and costs, including the $8.1 million in legal fees spent defending the original congressional maps thrown out by the Florida Supreme Court.

Democratic Rep. Janet Cruz estimated the cost of the session at $2 million. “When are we going to stop wasting taxpayer money?” Cruz asked.

According to state officials, special sessions have averaged a cost of $156,411 during the past 14 years, but most of those were only for a few days. The final cost of the latest two-week session hasn’t been tabulated.

Lawmakers already held a three-week special session in June to resolve a budget dispute between the House and Senate. They will head to Tallahassee again in October for an extra three-week session to redraw state Senate districts.

On Friday, GOP House Speaker Steve Crisafulli said the Senate’s district plan would not be approved by the courts.

“It is without malice toward the Florida Senate that I say I believe their map was flawed,” Crisafulli said.

Although lawmakers have until Tuesday to draw new maps, the meltdown means the courts will likely be forced to draw the 27 districts. Florida Gov. Rick Scott could step in, but a spokeswoman said he would not call lawmakers back into special session to try to force a compromise.

Things deteriorated Friday as each chamber refused to accede to the other’s plan. The dispute culminated in Sen. Bill Galvano, a Republican and lead Senate redistricting negotiator, abruptly walking out of a joint meeting with his House counterpart, GOP Rep. Jose Oliva, before it was adjourned, a serious breach of protocol.

“I think that that probably speaks to the nature that this has taken,” Oliva said after Galvano walked away frustrated because Oliva repeatedly rejected his pleas to begin formal negotiations to resolve their differences.

Galvano was upset at Oliva’s assertion that the Senate’s redistricting plan would be seen by the courts as favoring GOP Sen. Tom Lee.

Lee amended a map drawn by legislative staffers earlier in the week that would keep his area of eastern Hillsborough County within District 15. In the base map preferred by the House, that district stretched into southern Lake County.

“We’re not going to not do an amendment because a member is from a certain region,” Galvano said.

The special session was called by Crisafulli and Senate President Andy Gardiner, a Republican, after the state Supreme Court threw out the previous maps in July. The court ruled GOP operatives used members of the public as proxies to submit maps favoring the Republican Party, in violation of the Fair Districts amendments approved by voters.

Central Florida’s voters were at the heart of the dispute between the chambers. In the House’s map, District 10 is kept entirely within western Orange County, but in the Senate version it is pushed into Lake County, giving up Latino voters in Orange County to District 9.

Latino lawmakers in Central Florida — Republicans and Democrats alike — favored the Senate plan because it kept more Hispanic voters in District 9, creating a larger voting bloc for Hispanics.

Even if state courts draw the congressional districts, federal courts could have the final say.

U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Florida) is suing to stop her District 5 seat, which snakes down from Jacksonville into Orlando, from being redrawn to a Tallahassee-to-Jacksonville district. The Florida Supreme Court ordered lawmakers to redraw the district from east to west instead of north to south.

Democrats, far in the minority in both chambers, took the opportunity to criticize the leadership, especially given the Legislature’s inability to pass a budget in the regular session.

“Don’t forget we were here last month, not for the maps but because of their ineptitude. I mean, it’s the summer of ineptitude at this point,” said Democratic Rep. Evan Jenne, who has filed a bill to set up an independent commission to draw new districts.

Photo: Florida State Capitol, Matt Spence via Flickr