Boundary Changes: Is it Vote Stealing?

For several years, I have studied the workings of local and city governments, mainly in America but also UK. I am fascinated by retail politics. You cannot expect an MP or a Congressman to deal with refuse bin problems, street lighting and the myriad of matters dealt with by local and city politicians. Sadly, there is much corruption too, although surely fraud, deception and theft are the exception rather than the rule.

Back in the 1960s, T. Dan Smith, the Leader of Newcastle City Council and a prominent figure in the Labour Party in North East England, sought to clear Newcastle of slum housing. Smith formed business links with architect John Poulson. The relationship led to Smith’s trial for accepting bribes. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years imprisonment.

In America, city corruption was rife from post-Civil War times. The notorious boss, William Tweed of New York, sold pencils to the city at $70 a time and this in the 1870s. In the 1920s and 1930s, city bosses like Tom Pendergast of Kansas City and Frank Hague of Jersey City perfected the art of insider dealing as each developed property in their cities and became rich at the taxpayers’ expense. Pendergast also supplied most of the cement for city roads. Another fortune made at taxpayers’ expense.

Local and city politicians can also cheat the voters by fixing elections. Pendergast was the past-master. He devised all sorts of methods to swing elections his way. Personation, ghosting and ballot-box fixing were only three of his many tricks. When I give talks about this subject, the topic is often met with laughter because it is so outrageous but it is a serious matter. Effectively, the politicians who practice these black arts are cheating voters and denying their franchise.

My interest was aroused again last week when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford, a case which might impose constraints on partisan gerrymandering, the distorting of districts to political election advantage. The case concerns a redistricting plan put into place in Wisconsin in 2011. Republican state legislators developed a new electoral map in secret and then voted it through, using the Party’s majority in the legislature. In the 2012 election, Democrats won a majority of votes but Republicans captured sixty out of ninety-nine seats in the State Assembly. Something new had happened, different from the crude, ad-hoc gerrymandering of old.

What is gerrymandering? an occasion when someone in authority changes the borders of an area in order to increase the number of people within that area who will vote for a particular party or person: an occasion when someone in authority changes the borders of an area in order to increase the number of people within that area who will vote for a particular party or person: an occasion when someone in authority changes the borders of an area in order to increase the number of people within that area who will vote for a particular party or person: an occasion when someone in authority changes the borders of an area in order to increase the number of people within that area who will vote for a particular party or person: an occasion when someone in authority changes the borders of an area in order to increase the number of people within that area who will vote for a particular party or person:It can be defined as an occasion when a legally authorized person or body changes the borders of an area in order to increase the number of persons in that area who will vote for a particular person or party. But there are other instances, for example where voters more likely to be favorable to one political party are induced to move to a new district and ramp up votes for that party.

The word “gerrymander” was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette in 1812 in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts. The coiner has never been established. Historians widely believe that the Federalist newspaper editors Nathan Hale, and Benjamin and John Russell were the instigators. Gerrymandering soon began to be used to describe other cases of district-shape manipulation for partisan gain in other states.

It is a rarity in the UK but it happens. Following a narrow election victory in the 1986 local council elections, the Conservatives in the borough of Westminster feared they would be defeated unless there was a change in the social composition of the borough. The Conservative leader, Dame Shirley Porter, instituted a secret policy known as 'Building Stable Communities'. Some of Westminster's council housing was put up for commercial sale, rather than re-letting when the properties became vacant. The designated housing was concentrated in those wards most likely to change hands to Labour in the elections, thus markedly reducing the Labour vote. The Conservatives also played dirty tricks with “Labour” housing, such as delaying or not carrying out repairs and sanitation works. The Conservative policy was challenged by the District Auditor in the courts. Dame Shirley was convicted of gerrymandering and fined heavily.

changes the borders of an area in order to increase the number of people within that area who will vote for a particular party or person: changes the borders of an area in order to increase the number of people within that area who will vote for a particular party or person: changes the borders of an area in order to increase the number of people within that area who will vote for a particular party or person:In the United States, gerrymandering has a long tradition since the founding of the country. In 1788, Patrick Henry and his Anti-Federalist allies were in control of the Virginia House of Delegates. They drew the boundaries of Virginia's 5th congressional district in an unsuccessful attempt to keep James Madison out of the U.S. House of Representatives. But gerrymandering permeates through all stratas of government. I have anecdotal evidence that some high schools in Texas have their school districts re-drawn so that promising American football players would play for a particular school.

Throughout the 20th century, courts have grappled with the legality of types of gerrymandering and have devised different standards for the different types of gerrymandering. Legal and political remedies have emerged to prevent gerrymandering, including court-ordered redistricting plans, redistricting commissions, and alternative voting systems that do not depend on drawing boundaries for single-member electoral districts.

The internet will provide any interested reader with the long history of gerrymandering. Following the Watergate scandal, the "-mander" suffix has been used often to tie a particular effort to a particular politician or group, including "Jerrymander" referring to California Governor Jerry Brown and "Perrymander" for Rick Perry.

In the UK, The Parliamentary Boundaries Commission, an independent body, defines the geographic area and parliamentary constituency represented by each MP. A review examines the existing constituencies and makes recommendations for any changes that might be needed to make sure constituencies comply with legal requirements. Those legal requirements are intended to keep the number of electors in each constituency broadly equal, whilst also taking into account factors such as local community ties.

The Supreme Court has also decided on gerrymander issues. In Davis v. Bandemer (1986), it held that partisan gerrymandering violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution but then made a dogs breakfast of the ruling. The court could not agree on the appropriate constitutional standard against which legal claims of partisan gerrymandering should be evaluated. Writing for a plurality of the Court, Justice White said that partisan gerrymandering occurred when a redistricting plan was enacted with both the intent and the effect of discriminating against an identifiable political group. Other Justices said that partisan gerrymandering should be identified based on multiple factors, such as electoral district shape and adherence to local government boundaries. Three Justices disagreed with the view that partisan gerrymandering claims were justiciable, that is triable in a court of law, and held that such claims should not be recognized by courts. Little wonder the decision was considered unhelpful.

The Supreme Court revisited the concept of partisan gerrymandering claims in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004). The justices divided once again and no clear standard against which to evaluate partisan gerrymandering claims emerged. Writing for a plurality, Justice Scalia said that partisan gerrymandering claims were non-justiciable. A majority of the court would continue to allow partisan gerrymandering claims to be considered justiciable, but those Justices had divergent views on how such claims should be evaluated.

Little wonder that in America, the legal position needs clarification. Whether Gill will provide the Justices with an opportunity for this remains to be seen. It seems to me that there has been too much over-thinking by the Court. Surely, it should be a comparatively simple exercise to rule that re-placing or re-drawing district boundaries cannot have an overriding political influence favouring one political party. But this is America where its highest court is often as much political as legal.

The Trump Tax Plan

When stripped down to the barest of bones, the business of government can be summed up as follows: to collect money and spend money. How much to collect, where from and how to spend it depends on political ideology and necessity. I believe those who can best afford to pay should contribute more heavily than others but those others should be seen to contribute fairly. Likewise, those least able to care for themselves should be important beneficiaries but others should benefit too in fair proportions. I admit I am a one nation Tory.

Barack Obama put it much better than me. In the 2012 election campaign, he said: “How do we create an economy where everybody from top to bottom, folks on Wall Street and folks on Main Street, have a shot at success? If they’re working hard and they’re acting responsibly, they should live out the American Dream…The reason this is relevant to the campaign is because my opponent, Governor Romney, his main calling card for why he thinks he should be President is his business expertise…He is saying ‘I’m a business guy and I know how to fix it’. When you’re President, your job is not simply to maximise profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot.” (My italics.)

President Trump has not heeded his predecessor’s wise words. He has vaunted his skills as a deal-maker, although there is little evidence, thus far, of achievement. He regards governing as a business deal. It seems he thinks Puerto Rico should not receive much federal government help because they are in debt. Never mind that the island has been devastated by hurricanes, that there is still no power and no readily available drinking water.

Late last month, the Trump administration released its tax reform plan. Broadly speaking, The Unified Tax Reform Framework (“the Plan”) would reduce income tax rates, lowering the top rate to 35 percent. The Plan doubles standard deductions but eliminates personal exemptions, as well as lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. It allows a one-time repatriation of corporate profits earned overseas.

The Republican spin is that Trump's tax reforms will boost economic growth by giving families and businesses more money to spend. However, it is significant that the Republican leadership is unable to guarantee tax cuts for all middle-class workers. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin defended the Plan as a boon to the middle class amid accusations from Democrats and interest groups representing the lower income families that it is primarily a ploy to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy. It is the same old partisan politics lacking any analysis, just predictable ideology. Tax is bad/good depending on political persuasion.

I see the Plan as a broader attempt to pass a major legislative priority this year. The Republicans are under intense pressure from voters and President Trump to fulfil their pledge on taxes. After the dramatic failure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, Congress seats are on the line.

Unless US government spending is reined in, the Plan will add $4.2 trillion to the current US debt of $20 trillion. Favouritism to the wealthy and lost revenue is why the US debt increases so much. However, it should be said that the wealthiest Americans contribute the lion's share of total tax revenues. So: not only will the debt slow growth in the long run but the assumption by the Trump administration is that the rest of the world will continue to buy American government bonds to finance both the rise in the US debt and pay for tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest in American society.

Also, the Plan eliminates the estate tax and the generation-skipping transfer tax. That would help the top 1 percent of the population who pay it. Some 5,000 tax payers will benefit, including the Trump family and other billionaires who have joined his government. Tax breaks improve at each income level but the top 1 percent would get an 8.5 per cent break.

The Plan reminds me of the 1980s Reagan experiment with taxation. The Republicans are once again relying on supply-side economics, giving tax cuts to business to create jobs. It worked for a while during the Reagan administration because the highest tax rate was 70 percent. According to some economists, when taxes are high enough, cuts boost economies out of debt. But today's tax rates are half that. That's why I doubt trickle-down economics will work. The Democrats will rightfully claim that in Trump’s America, those who need government help the most won’t get it because the uber-rich are paying much less tax. 

Of course, it is up to Congress to decide on the Plan. Under the ‘Senate Reconciliation Rule’, if it is proved that tax cuts will not increase the budget deficit, the Senate filibuster rules will not apply to a vote. The Bill would only require 50 votes because Vice-President Mike Pence has the tie-breaking vote. However, if the budget deficit increases, a 60-vote Senate majority is needed to defeat a filibuster. How would the $4.2 trillion deficit be offset? An interesting question. We have not seen the proposals for cuts in expenditure which will help defray tax cuts. We can be certain that entitlements for the poor and middle class will be hit but the savings Trump was looking for by abandoning Obamacare are not available.

Will budget-conscious Republican senators support the Plan? Trump’s track record in persuading Congress is as poor as can be. But in American politics, you should always allow for surprises.

 

 

Will the abomination in Las Vegas this week result in any changes in gun law? Readers of my blog will know I consider the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” is wrongly construed. I am certain that, despite Las Vegas, nothing will happen to end America’s gun slaughter unless and until the gun lobby, led by the NRA, is held in check. Congress is considering action, supported by the NRA, to limit the ability to fire multiple rounds of bullets in quick time. Talk about a Band-Aid when major surgery is needed. Sadly, the outrage of Las Vegas, like Orlando, Newtown, Connecticut and Washington Navy Yard, are soon set aside. On this issue, lily-livered members of Congress are too closely associated with their gun lobby funders to take action. The President campaigned on a platform of ‘hands off the guns.’ He played to the NRA and fellow travellers. The rebuttal ought to be found in election ballot boxes but will it?

 

 

Gingrich For Speaker?

It is a peculiarity of politics in the western democracies that voters have short memories. For example, in the UK our first past the vote electoral system finds Party A voted into power as an antidote to the failed policies of Party B, only to find an unchanged and unrepentant Party B back in power just few short years later. And it is not just the political parties who benefit. Individuals transgress and are removed from power, only to find themselves welcomed back to the fold. Tony Blair welcomed Peter Mandelson back to his cabinet not once but twice, after Mandelson had transgressed and broken rules.

And so it was, a few days ago, that a chill sense of foreboding crept down my spine when The Washington Post reported that influential House conservatives are privately plotting a possible leadership challenge to House Speaker Paul D. Ryan. The group has floated the idea of recruiting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as a potential replacement for Ryan. Gingrich is no longer a member of Congress but, oddly, the Constitution does not require that an elected member of the House serve as Speaker.

Unlike the Speaker in the British parliament, the office of the US Speaker is vested with enormous powers. He or she administers proceedings on the House floor, including recognition of members to speak or make motions and appointment to committees. The Speaker’s role as “elect of the elect” places him in a highly visible position with the public. He is leader of the House majority party conference and often responsible for airing and defending the majority party’s legislative agenda, including calling or deferring votes.

So, here comes the memory thing. In the 1994 mid-term elections, Bill Clinton found himself isolated when the Republicans won majorities in both Houses of Congress. Gingrich was elected by House Republicans as Speaker and what followed was what Gingrich termed "The Contract with America." He sought to emulate Franklin Roosevelt's first 100 days by having the House pass ten major and important pieces of legislation. 

The proposed new laws were radical and controversial but easy to understand, covering all aspects of American politics and society. Here are some examples: The Fiscal Responsibility Act represented the ideological belief that there should not be deficits. Taking Back Our Streets Act contained numerous provisions to make the death penalty more effective including reducing appellate rights. The Personal Responsibility Act cut aid to unmarried mothers under the age of 18. The American Dream Restoration Act gave a $500 tax credit per child and tax relief for families earning up to $200,000 pa. The Citizen Legislature Act imposed term limits on Congress members: two terms for senators and six for Representatives.

One effect of the mid-term victory and the proposed laws was to put Gingrich to the top of the political heap. The atmosphere in the House was mixed, with the Republicans jubilant and the Democrats depressed. But, as is often the case, the Senate came to the rescue. The Gingrich Bills passed the House but not the Senate, where it was recognised that the public had voted against the status quo, not for the Contract with America.

Then in the run-up to the 1996 election, Clinton adopted the popular issues as his own while the economy improved and made the Republicans, especially Gingrich, appear harsh, uncaring and victimisers of women and children. Gingrich’s arrogance was exposed for good and all when he complained to the media about his seating allocation on Air Force One during the Presidential trip to Israel for Yitzhak Rubin’s funeral. His credibility was shot to pieces.

I doubt that Gingrich, undoubtedly a clever politician, has changed much. He remains as he ever was, a Southern politician enflamed with right wing ideology who would run the House of Representatives as his personal fiefdom if ever he was re-elected as Speaker. It’s unthinkable…..but so was President Trump and, for us Brits, Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, a man whose own Party is divided about his leadership, is now more than a possibility for PM. Funny old world.

 

 

The Emperor's New Suit of Clothes

 

Readers of this blog may have got the impression that I am not totally sold on the Trump Presidency. Well, I have to put my hand up and acknowledge this is right, or, to be more accurate, I cannot stand the politics and politicking of this Reality TV obsessed, boastful, megalomaniac, inarticulate philanderer. “Come on, John,” I hear you say, “tell us what you really think.”

Well, I have to say that a few days ago, I thought the President had gone through an epiphany. It seems to have occurred sometime between Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Trump looked at the former as a photo opportunity as he plodded through Corpus Christi, making Harvey his own personal storm. By the time Irma hit Florida, the presidential tone had very much changed as he focused on the people in that state and the emergency services. Why should we applaud the Donald for finally saying and doing what any other President would have said and done? I guess because it was so out of character. He showed caring for all Floridians, not merely those who fawn at Mar-al-Largo.

What also caught my attention was the way Mr T took a leaf from the Clinton playbook, Bill, that is, not Hillary. When Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, he faced feral Republicans in Congress posing an extreme right wing stance, while the Congressional Democrats were seeking a far left agenda. Clinton chose a policy which he termed Triangulation, positioning himself in the middle as the sole voice of political reason. He ran against a moderate Republican, Bob Dole, and trounced him.

Of late, Trump has been following a similar policy. Realising that the GOP in Congress was not going to deliver on all manner of issues, he cozied up to Congressional Democrats. Trump adopted a Democrat approach and signed an Executive Order extending the US Debt ceiling, which has to receive Congressional approval by December 8^th this year. The GOP wanted the date extended to December 2018 so it will not be an issue in next year’s mid-terms. However, Senate Democrats would filibuster any attempt at such a lengthy extension. It remains to be seen whether Congress will pass the Bill.

Additionally, Trump is looking to the Democrats to pass a budget. Trump wants tax reform to stimulate growth, especially using a deep corporate tax cut. He has indicated that to get a deal, he will raise taxes on “the rich.” There are other issues to resolve. For example, Trump wants to repeal inheritance tax; the Democrats want it retained. It seems that a deal to legalise the status of “Dreamers”, young people brought illegally to the US, is on the cards, so long as there is no interference by Congressional Democrats on the funding of the Mexican wall. I doubt Trump will get his way on both these issues.

But the real point is that the President realised that bipartisanship can equate to governing. While the members of his party in the Senate remain intransigent towards the President’s policies, he’ll try to get his way elsewhere: he would not need many Republican votes in the Senate and just a few more in the House. However, the playing field may change quickly as the hastily assembled Cassidy/Graham Bill to abolish Obamacare hits Congress. Trump has expressed approval to the Bill in his zeal to kill the current healthcare laws. He may be forced to change his mind if he wants a budget.

Then, on Tuesday, Trump went to the United Nations and saw red mist. References to “Rocket Man” and destroying North Korea may be Trumplomacy but how unhelpful do you need to be? He forgot his predecessor’s, Teddy Roosevelt’s, advice: “walk softly and carry a big stick.” Everyone in the United Nations, let alone the world, knows America has a nuclear arsenal that could blow up the planet twenty times over. Does Trump believe that smart nuclear bombs can remove 28 million North Koreans from the face of the earth without harming one South Korean? Does he believe that Russia, China and other less friendly nuclear nations will not retaliate? Someone needs to tell this President and quickly that he has a nuclear deterrent whose power is lost once it is used. We need LBJ back. He often exclaimed during the Vietnam conflict, “the only fucking real power I have is nuclear and I can’t use that.” Trump needs to hear this.

Sometimes, politics is about timing. Behind closed doors, the Mueller investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 Presidential election is taking shape and moving closer and closer to the White House. I expect Trump’s rhetoric to escalate in October as his Presidency and feet are put to the fire. Will he survive? I’d tell you but I’ve mislaid my crystal ball.

Ken Burns - The Modern American Historian

This week, hundreds of Washington insiders gathered in the Kennedy Center Opera House for an advance screening of Ken Burns’ new documentary on Vietnam. Before Burns showed half a dozen choice clips from his 10-part, 18-hour film, he asked everyone who served in the military during the war to stand so they could be recognized. John McCain and John Kerry were among those who rose. Burns then asked anyone who protested Vietnam to also stand. Dozens did. “I couldn’t tell the difference,” Burns remarked, referring to both groups. The veterans, including McCain, joined the audience in applauding the anti-war demonstrators. So, has Vietnam ceased to be a running sore like the failed Bay of Pigs invasion?

I first heard of Ken Burns some twenty years ago when I watched his opus, the documentary series on the American Civil War. He wrote the script, he sewed together the history with the use of maps, biographies, newspapers, paintings and especially original photographs and letters from combatants and non-combatants read by professional actors. He produced a masterpiece. Having read the three volume Civil War history by Shelby Foote, I found Burns’ approach so much more digestible.

Burns followed the treatment of the Civil War by television histories of, amongst others, The Dust Bowl, Baseball, Prohibition, The Roosevelts and now Vietnam. He is painstaking in the way he clarifies and knits history together. Sure there are dates, places and events but the analysis he brings shines a torch on his topics. I look forward to watching the latest epic whose story will, I’m sure, cover not only the history and events in south-east Asia but also the turmoil and politics at home. It is undoubtedly one of the darkest and most divisive chapters in American history.

From 1954, when the French were humiliated by North Vietnamese guerrillas at Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam was the Achilles heel of American foreign policy. I cannot prove that Vietnam ruined the Eisenhower presidency but it was a major element of a failed Cold War policy, the domino theory: if one nation falls to communism others will follow. Likewise, I cannot be certain that Vietnam, rather than Cuba, was the underlying reason for Kennedy’s assassination but three weeks before his death he announced a potential removal from Vietnam, to the shock of the Joint Chiefs and others.

What cannot be denied is that two giant Presidents, Johnson and Nixon, were defeated by their Vietnam policies. Johnson decided to escalate the conflict, aided by his mastery of a weak Congress who, by passing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, gave LBJ carte blanche for the escalation. Two points: first, there was an alleged attack on American warships in the Gulf of Tonkin which fired up the executive and legislative branches of the US government and the nation alike. The trouble is the attack did not happen. Second, the conflict was an undeclared war, the longest in American history. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war but it never did. The War Powers Act of 1973 sought to control the executive in this regard.

Despite some 200,000 American soldiers fighting for the South at any one time and more than three million overall, the war never looked like being won. Huge demonstrations against the war in DC, New York and other big cities divided the country. In truth, Johnson never had control of the war either in Vietnam or at home.

Nixon never expected to win the war. In 1968, the eminent television journalist, Walter Cronkite, declared the Tet offensive a loss when, in military terms, it was a win. Cronkite forecast a stalemate in Vietnam. That year Nixon sought election on a Vietnamese peace with honour platform. He accepted Cronkite’s assessment.  By 1972, Nixon’s re-election year, peace was still far away. Too many government leaks, as well as the publication of The Pentagon Papers, caused Nixon to introduce an anti-leak policy, operated from the White House by The Plumbers. There is a direct line to the June, 1972, Watergate break-in and impeachment.

The American withdrawal from South Vietnam in 1974 was soon followed by the hasty departure and emergency evacuation of the American Embassy in Saigon. President Gerald Ford was no challenge for Jimmy Carter that year.

I am certain that Ken Burns will cover all these events in far greater detail and, perhaps with an analysis different from mine. If so, I will not object. He is a zealous researcher without an axe to grind. I commend you all to his histories.