The chief problem for all legislatures is "gerrymandering." Gerrymandering may be defined as having legislative district boundary lines drawn so the population in a given district favors a particular political party or political faction.
The term was coined in 1812 when Republicans--who controlled the Massachusetts legislative assembly, at the time--re-drew legislative districts in the Bay State to benefit their party. The bill proposing the new legislative boundaries was signed into law by Governor Elbridge Gerry. A Massachusetts newspaper then labeled the action of re-drawing districts to benefit one particular political faction "gerrymandering"--and the term stuck.
There have been problems with attempts to correct gerrymandering. Governors and legislatures have sought to appoint "non-partisan" committees or commissions to propose legislative districts that would be seen--by all residents in a state--as being more "fair." Such committees are rarely viewed positively by all parties.
The most fair legislative districts have been drawn when state legislators--or state-wide political organizations--have filed suit in federal district court seeking to have the federal court throw out the legislative district boundaries currently employed--and to have the federal court draw new boundaries. The ruling by the federal district court--regardless of what the court rules--is most often appealed, by the state political party currently in power.
The case then goes to a three-judge panel of federal appeals court judges. After reviewing all of the legal briefs filed in the federal district court, in the case, the panel of appeals court judges then rule to either uphold the existing boundary lines, or the boundaries proposed by the federal district court, or the federal appeals court will draw new legislative district boundary lines and will then impose the federal appeals court decision on the state.
In my opinion, the biggest current weakness of the legislature is the lack of a middle ground. In many state governments and even at the federal level, many elected officials come from districts that are not diverse or competitive. As a result, elected officials can take a very narrow or extreme position on issues and not have to worry about getting reelected because they know they are safe with their constituents. This leads to hardline positions being taken with very little room for common ground. As a result, either very little gets accomplished because the viewpoints are very far apart on a given issue or a large group of people feels their voices are not being heard. We have seen little progress made at the federal level on so many issues, including immigration and health care, because there seems to be little room for compromise.
One way this can be alleviated is by having nonpartisan agencies draw the lines that make up districts within the state government and for the House of Representatives. By avoiding gerrymandering, a practice that makes some districts safe because the voters are primarily from one political party with little variation in views on issues, districts will become more competitive, which should make it more difficult for elected officials to take extreme positions. For example, in Wisconsin, in the election of 2012, Democrats received 52% of the total vote but only won 33 of the 99 seats in the State Assembly. As a result, there has been little reason for elected officials to compromise, leaving a significant number of people with a feeling that their voices are not being heard. While laws are being passed in Wisconsin because one party has such a large majority, the views of many people are not being acted upon by the state legislature. This can lead to a feeling that the government is not working for the people.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/columnists/david-haynes/2018/06/21/concern-over-gerrymandering-isnt-going-away-what-you-need-know/717560002/?from=new-cookie
No comments:
Post a Comment