Friday, 11 February 2011 13:47
Redistricting, Louisiana, 14th Amendment And Unintended Consequences
Written by 

Redistricting and gerrymandering are once again the focus of high-stakes politics in Louisiana, and across the country.  This is the once-a-decade process during which political incumbents selectively redraw the boundaries of their districts to include mostly people who will vote for them.  This is also why Congress is so polarized.  Democratic incumbents redraw districts to include as many liberals as possible and Republicans do the same with conservatives.  The moderate middle, which is most of us purple people, get divvied between the two extremes and do not have much say in who gets elected.

There is an even more sinister aspect to redistricting, and congressional apportionment.  Consider that all congressional districts within a state must have equal populations.  This includes all residents: voters, non-voters, citizens, legal residents, illegal residents, babies, everyone.  Many of our nation’s social ills originated from counting everyone for purposes of redistricting/apportionment.

The Trail of Tears is one of the darkest moments in American history.  Thousands of Native Americans died when they were forced to migrate from their tribal lands in the southeastern states to what is now Oklahoma.  This was mandated by the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which passed Congress because of the unanimous support from slave states where these tribal lands were located.  Ironically, it was the inclusion of slaves in the apportionment count that provided enough votes in Congress to pass the Act.  Sadly, it was the political power taken from slaves, who could not vote, that was used to displace Native Americans, who also could not vote.

 

Our current method of apportionment is based on 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868.  When the amendment was being debated there was a proposal to base apportionment on voters – not total population.  This version was promoted by three republican congressmen from Ohio and Pennsylvania.  They reasoned that basing congressional representation on voters would create an incentive for southern states to allow black males to vote.  These white northern congressmen wagered that the former slaves would vote for republican candidates given that Abraham Lincoln, a republican, had freed them.  Ultimately, congressional apportionment was not based on voters for two reasons.  First, southern states wanted to disenfranchise black voters without having to worry about losing congressional representatives.  Second, there was a concern that basing apportionment on voters would create an incentive to extend voting rights to women.  Apportionment was based on total population in order to limit voting rights. This delayed women’s suffrage until 1920 and southern blacks did not regain voting rights until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

Isn’t that all behind us?  Not really.

We no longer have slavery but we do have large numbers of non-voters.  This includes both illegal and legal immigrants who are not citizens.  There are also plenty of American-born residents who do not vote.   The problem is that these non-voters are concentrated in states with the highest population growth.  We are increasingly giving more congressional representation to states with the lowest voter participation.  Do not be surprised if there are awful and unintended consequences.

It is time to revisit the initial proposal for the 14th amendment and base congressional apportionment on the population of voters.  This would limit political power to one-person, one-vote.

Orlando Rodriguez is a graduate of LSU who works for a public policy organization in Connecticut.  He is the author of Vote Thieves: Illegal Immigration, Redistricting, and Presidential Elections from Potomac Books, Inc.

Login to post comments
Powered By JFBConnect
  • Comey's Russia testimony was bad omen for Trump
  • Contenders to succeed N. Louisiana Congressman Mike Johnson, at starting gate
  • JBE spending governance leads to Louisiana's lower credit ratings
  • Will distorting RussiaGate backfire on Trump and Company?

watergateEven the Russians are talking about the impeachment of Donald Trump. The L.A. Times reported on Monday, March 20, 2017, “Sergei Markov, a Moscow-based political analyst and a former lawmaker with the ruling United Russia party, claimed the hearings into Russian meddling in the 2016 election are ‘related to an attempt to impeach Trump.’”

Read More

mike johnson2by Lou Gehrig Burnett, Publisher of Fax-Net
Saturday is election day
    The race for the District 8 seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives highlights election day this Saturday, March 25.
    It is a special election called to fill the seat of Rep. Mike Johnson, who was elected to Congress.  The winner will serve out the remainder of his term.

Read More

It shouldn’t be a surprise that Louisiana has endured adverse credit rating changes since edwards midDemocrat Gov. John Bel Edwards assumed office, completing a downgrade trifecta last week.

Read More

backgunThe post-mortem on the Donald Trump-Comey-House Intelligence Hearing Monday continues.

On the extreme right, from the jowls of someone who knows a thing or two about investigations against a President, Pat Buchannan, there is still “nothing there, there”.

 

Read More

latter-blum2

TRUMP TALK

Trump Talk: Ryancare, Russia, Investigations, Travel ban--with Jeff Crouere

Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1