Toward a More Perfect Union: A Prescriptive Approach — Gerrymandering & Courts
Gerrymandering
The term “gerrymander” comes from a post-Revolutionary-War governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry (whose surname, by the way, is pronounced with a hard “G”), who redrew district lines to suit his own political aims. The result was a snake-shaped district that someone said looked like a salamander, and someone else rephrased it as a gerrymander. The term has stuck, although mispronounced with a soft “g”.
The practice is not only still alive, but it has been – and is being – adopted in numerous states. It is also bipartisan. Claims of “gerrymandering” have been levied by both sides. Democrats have been accused of doing this in Maryland, while Republicans have accomplished it in many states including Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and many others.
The recent ruling by the Pennsylvania supreme court that mandates an immediate redrawing of blatantly gerrymandered congressional districts is one step in the effort to make voting more fair and representative.
The problem arises because district lines are drawn by the majority party in the year following each census. The idiocy of this practice has become apparent because the GOP has become greedy and made those lines in a too-obvious attempt to slant the elections and maintain racist voting patterns. Even though Democrats usually garner the most votes nationwide, they are consistently underrepresented in congress.
The solution to this should be obvious. The lines should be drawn by non-partisan individuals who are elected by statewide – or perhaps district-wide – popular vote, not appointed by the majority party. They would NOT be answerable to whatever party may be in power in that state. They would be answerable only to the voting public and to judicial review. People elected to these positions should be broadly representative of their state on the basis of gender, race, economic status, and ethnicity. Also, there are scientific methods for drawing district lines fairly that should be implemented.
Supreme Court and Federal Courts
Recommendation: While the President can nominate, and the Senate confirm, appointments in the supreme court and the federal courts, any nominee MUST be approved, by the ABA or other nonpartisan board, as qualified and impartial, and must have previous substantial trial experience, the extent of which should be determined by the ABA with the approval of congress. This needs to be codified into law or an amendment. Additionally, the nominee must have no ongoing accusations of sexual, ethical, or financial misconduct levied against him/her.
We also need to have simpler ways to remove or impeach a Justice that has blatantly overstepped the bounds of common sense and sanity. While such removal should be done rarely and over significant roadblocks, we need to have more transparency on decisions by the Justices and to allow petitions (with significant numbers of signatures) and congress to step in to initiate such proceedings. After all, since the appointment is a lifetime one, the issues of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease are real concerns that we should be able to address outside of the supreme court itself. Another consideration is “good behavior” by the Justices, where substantial egregious behavior would be a cause for removal.
Continued in Part 4 — Congress
Other options:
Return to Part 1 — Prologue
Return to Part 2 — Voting & Election Issues
Go to Part 5 — President and DOJ
Go to Part 6 — Campaign Financing
Go to Part 7 — Lying and Ethics
Go to Part 8 — Sexism and LGBT
Go to Part 9 — Abortion & Church/State
Go to Part 10 — Guns
Go to Part 11 — Healthcare & VA
Go to Part 12 — Big Pharma
Go to Part 13 — Environment
Go to Part 14 — Energy
Go to Part 15 — Education
Go to Part 16 — Economics
Go to Part 17 — Unions, Safety Net
Go to Part 18 — Homelessness
Go to Part 19 — Trade, Tariffs
Go to Part 20 — Media
Go to Part 21 — War, National Security
--------------------------------------------------------------------------—
Above is the third of numerous submissions wherein I suggest ways our country, our government, and the world can be made better. I am an old fart in my 70’s and have seen much: the turmoil of the 1960’s; Vietnam (where I served as an infantry officer and was awarded a purple heart and other medals); the anti-Vietnam protests (in which I participated while still in uniform); Watergate, the rise of the right wing attack on the poor and powerless during and after the Reagan years; the continued wars in Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan and pretty much everywhere else; the Clinton years, the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and the never-ending war since, the brief glow of sunshine during the Obama years, and now Trump. While my dog in this fight is getting long in the tooth, I still deeply care about three things: my country, my country’s honor, and the future we leave to our descendants. My personal history, other than military service, includes college teaching, computer support, hospital IT supervision, consulting, and now — in my retirement — substitute teaching.
I make my recommendations in all seriousness, recognizing that most of them are not immediately attainable. Nevertheless, if we elect people who share our values as our representatives at all levels of government, we can accomplish much.