Don't Be Shocked

Sometimes I need to remind myself of the obvious things, because they are so easy to forget.  Only two weeks into the Trump presidency, I hear endless shock and outrage that our nation could do such things.  

The outrage is justified. 

But perhaps not the shock.  

I think it’s time to do a reality check for the young, white people of my generation.  Many of us, myself included, have grown up assuming that it’s obvious that all people deserve equal rights, opportunities, and respect.  Yes, we know there are still bigots out there, but laws are in place to protect the rights of minorities, women, etc., and our country is still refining and improving those laws.  President Trump is suddenly casting all that into doubt.  

But here’s the thing.  These rights are not obvious, in any historical sense.  The sense of morality that we grew up with is a really NEW THING—so new that our own parents grew up in a time when these ideas of equality were neither obvious, nor popular.  The laws guaranteeing equality, which may seem like ancient history to anyone born after 1980, are brand-spanking new.  

Let’s spend a minute thinking about the rights that we may have taken for granted:

People should all be given the same rights and opportunities.

The Civil Rights Act, which officially desegregated America and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, passed in 1964 after a decade of organized, mass-protests.  It was followed by the Voting Rights Act (1965), which overrode state and local laws that had prevented African-Americans from voting.  
 

That was barely over fifty years ago.  

People of different races should be allowed to marry.

2017 marks the 50^th anniversary of the nationwide legalization of interracial marriage in the United States!  Mr. and Mrs. Loving had been arrested, fined, and then kicked out of their native Virginia for violating the state’s “Racial Integrity Act” which prohibited marriage between a white and a non-white.  In the aptly-named case Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court struck down all bans on interracial marriage.  

Children with disabilities should have access to quality public education.

To quote from my Human Learning and Development class:

“Until the 1970s, most U.S. public schools either refused enrollment to children with disabilities or inadequately served them.  This changed in 1975, when Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, required that all students with disabilities be given a free, appropriate public education.”

Incidentally, this is what Hillary Clinton was fighting for back in the 70s.  

Eugenics and forced sterilization are BAD.  That’s Nazi stuff. 

Actually, the US had eugenics programs before the Nazis, and we kept doing it even after WWII.  An estimated 65,000 Americans were sterilized under these state laws between the 1920s and 70s—mostly poor women of color who were deemed “feeble-minded” or “promiscuous.”  Eugenics laws were upheld in the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell in 1927.  Most of these laws were repealed in the 1970s.  Even so, there was a recent case in California in which 146 female inmates were sterilized without proper consent between 2006 and 2010.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sterilization-united-states_us_568f35f2e4b0c8beacf68713

http://www.msnbc.com/all/eugenic-sterilization-victims-belated-justice

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/

 

You cannot ban people from the United States because of their beliefs.

The McCarren-Walter Act (1952) banned anyone who was believed to be a Communist from entering the United States and also allowed for the deportation of Communists.  President Truman vetoed the bill, calling it “un-American” and “inhumane,” but Congress overrode the veto.  The act remained in place until 1965. 

~~~~~~~

My point is, these assumptions we make about human rights—that we consider basic, fundamental, obvious—are anything but.  They are revolutionary.  They are new.  They are fragile.  We are the first generation in American history to grow up with these assumptions. 

So be outraged.  Be outraged that Trump and the Republicans are threatening rights that so many people died and protested and suffered for.  Be outraged that our country is now sinking lower on the scales of justice.  

But don’t be shocked.  After all, you can’t honestly assume that laws which have only been around for 40 or 50 years will be permanent.  They could disappear as quickly as they came. 

At the Crossroads

I've started watching the Ken Burns documentary on the American Civil War.  It has reminded me of certain very salient things, as we await the beginning of the Trump administration. 

First, America has been through far worse times than this.  One half of the country may feel deeply, personally betrayed by the other at this moment, but we have already been through far more divisive and painful times, and we emerged as one nation that went on to share many powerful moments of victory, loss, and progress together.  If we can recover from the Civil War, we can recover from this. 

Second, I also recognize, in a sense, that we are still recovering from the Civil War.  Many of the old questions about race, rights, and power are abruptly in the spotlight once more.  This time, however, there is no neat division along geographical lines.  Much has been made in recent days of the division between the cities and the country, and the silent majority who did, in fact, come out to vote for Donald Trump.  We cannot separate city from country and there can be no question of secession this time.  We must learn to communicate and live with each other, if our nation is to continue being a successful nation.  I posted this article on my facebook page arguing that "The Other Side is Not Dumb."  I still support that stance, especially in the sense that the concerns of the other side are not dumb, and it is absolutely worth talking to people rather than rejecting them.  This interview from the Washington Post poignantly expresses the genuine suffering that rural people have been living with for the past few decades, and, above all, it demonstrates the power of actually talking to people and building human connections.  Arguing on Facebook and Twitter is not enough to change anyone's mind.  Only by knowing and respecting people can you have a real conversation.  I believe that. 

But.

I am not telling anyone to calm down.  I am not telling anyone that it's okay and we will definitely get through this.  There is nothing definite.  The fact that our democracy and our nation survived the Civil War does not mean that we will survive this--it only means that we can.  But we will have to fight. 

The concerns of the other side are not dumb, but the propagation of false information and the creation of echo chambers online is the greatest threat to our democracy in recent decades: not terrorism, not economic decline, not even Donald Trump can destroy our government as effectively as an electorate who has no idea what's actually going on.  If people can surround themselves with information that they want to hear and ignore reality completely, they cannot make informed decisions.  Barack Obama recently said, "I have complete confidence in the American people—that if I can have a conversation with them they’ll choose what’s right. At an emotional level, they want to do the right thing if they have the information."  I share that confidence that people are very capable of making good choices if they have good information.  But with recent stories showing how hugely popular fake news and pro-Trump twitter bots swarmed the internet in the run-up to election day, I am increasingly alarmed at the possibility of elections essentially being rigged through an online media barrage of misinformation.  This is something that will be extremely difficult to address in the short term without resorting to measures that basically amount to censorship.  We need education first and foremost, teaching people to challenge their own assumptions and distinguish good news sources from bad, but that is a very long, long-term solution.  We need to find solutions that will be effective immediately.  Some ideas, such as this plug-in that labels news on facebook as "verified" or "not verified" are a step in the right direction, but that won't be enough. 

In tandem with the problem of misinformation, we need to deal with prejudice.  There is a whole movement now calling on liberals not to malign Trump supporters as a monolithic group of women/minority-hating ignoramuses.  I agree that categorizing people in this way is wrong and counter-productive.  Treating them with contempt and hatred will only make things worse.  However, the fact remains that Trump ran a campaign based on bigotry and hate, and we just vindicated all of that by electing him.  Many Trump supporters have come out of the woodwork recently, including women, Muslims, and immigrants, who admit they voted for Trump in spite of his racist/misogynist rhetoric, usually because they agree with his economic policies or because they truly believe that Clinton is more corrupt than he is.  But this idea that all the hateful, ignorant things he said on the campaign trail can be overlooked if he just makes positive changes to the economy is extremely dangerous.  In the words of Irish Senator Aodhán Ó Riordáin, "When are we going to have the moral courage to speak in terms other than economy all the time?"  (I recommend you watch the whole video).  He was addressing the Irish government on their response to Trump's election, but this applies to everyone the world over.  There is something much, much bigger and more dangerous at work here: a shift in our moral codes and in our standards of acceptable conduct between people.  It's not just in America, it's all over Europe and perhaps all over the world.


It is easy to compare what is happening now, both here and globally, to what happened in the 1930s.  There is the rise of protectionism, isolationism, and a tendency to have faith in strongmen and autocrats.  There is a rising belief that the current systems are somehow broken, that we can save ourselves by reverting to semi-imagined times of former prosperity, shutting ourselves in and putting our nation "first."  There are increasing numbers of ever more popular politicians who espouse racism, religious prejudice, and unhumanitarian policies in the name of patriotism.  Many of you already know who these people are, but here's a shortlist: Donald Trump, Marine LePen (running for President of France in 2017), Viktor Orban (Prime Minister of Hungary), Geert Wilders (leader of the Dutch Freedom Party), not to mention well-entrenched autocrats like Vladimir Putin and Recep Erdogan.   Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel, now the strongest world leader who still advocates for democracy based upon liberal values, is under fire at home.  She could lose her place as chancellor.  It is very clear: the world is tilting towards fascism yet again, and the election of Donald Trump just gave it an enormous push in that direction. 

In Europe, people are particularly afraid of Vladimir Putin, especially now that the United States, the backbone of NATO, has a president who says he will no longer fund NATO or honor its commitments.  

Hitler is often an absurdly, casually overused point of comparison for anyone with ideas we don't like.  But in all seriousness, we need to think about Hitler's invasion and annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938, which the world chose not to oppose, as a potential parallel to Putin's invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014.  Who would stop Putin from taking the rest of Ukraine if the world and, particularly, a Trump administration, refuse to oppose him?  This article paints a nasty picture of what might happen if this trend is allowed to continue: the disintegration of NATO and the European Union, and Russia taking over neighboring countries like the Baltic states.  Some friends of mine, who are very well informed and whose opinions I respect, think that this scenario is way overblown.  They argue that Putin would have little to gain from taking over Eastern Europe.  At least by taking Crimea, Russia got an important naval base at low cost.  But the fact is, we don't know what Putin is planning, and he has demonstrated clear expansionist ambitions.  He is a former KGB man, who, as the leader of Russia, has been known to have political rivals assassinated in broad daylight and to have Russian dissidents poisoned even on foreign soil.  He is apparently very popular in Russia, which he rules with an iron fist, and he still possesses one of the most powerful military apparatuses in the world. 


To quote John Oliver, "Things are not going to be okay."  We must act.  There are still strong reasons for hope.  There are key differences between our world now and the world of the 1930s.  The United Nations is stronger than its predecessor, the League of Nations.  The European Union could yet hold together and be a powerful force in the world (as long as Marine Le Pen is not elected next year).  Donald Trump may be a fascist, but our republican institutions are much stronger and more deeply ingrained than those in Germany during Hitler's rise.  Reminder: Trump is certainly not Hitler--he's not advocating for the extermination of an entire race or for taking over the world, but he is still a dangerous advocate for violence, irresponsibility, and selfishness.  Crucially, Trump doesn't enjoy anywhere near as much popular support as Hitler, who, between 1934 and 1938, "gained the backing of the vast majority of the German people."  Having lost the popular vote and being vehemently opposed by a majority of Americans, Trump currently has a far more limited mandate to work with.  We need to keep it that way.  

All of our greatest victories as a nation--the Civil War, WWII, the Civil Rights Movement--were never foregone conclusions.  History could've turned out very differently were it not for the actions of certain key individuals and many, many thousands of people who were willing to make serious sacrifices for a better world.  We need to remember that, every day, as we try to bring stability and sanity back to our world. 

Many people have already made to-do lists.  Here's mine.  

1) Have real conversations with Trump supporters you know.  Don't block them out.  Don't automatically blame them or get angry at them.  Tell them you're afraid.  Tell them of all the harm you fear will come from a Trump administration.  I've already done this with one person close to me.  We did not change each other's minds, but we did make it clear that A) we care about each other, B) that our fears and concerns are genuine, C) we left the door open for more conversations down the road. 

2) Do not tolerate bigotry in any form, anywhere.  That includes when you're trying to have an open conversation with a Trump supporter, and they say something racist or misogynist.  Point it out, tell them that they are degrading your friends/family/colleagues by saying such things, and tell them that you won't tolerate those kind of comments.  Some may refuse to stop, or some may refuse to keep talking to you, but just because you can't get through to everyone that doesn't mean you should back down.  The point here is to prevent our society from evolving backgrounds to one where it is increasingly acceptable and commonplace to say bigoted things.

3) Support the National Popular Vote compact.  Part of the dysfunction in our political system is that only a few states really matter in any presidential election: the swing states.  Voter turnout and interest would be much higher if the president was chosen by direct popular vote.  This compact has already been passed in 11 states.  If enough states pass it so that they make up a majority of the electoral college votes (270), then all of their electors would, from then on, be bound to vote for the candidate who wins the national popular vote.    

4)  Join the Safety Pin Movement.  Put a safety pin on all your coats, backpacks, etc., so that if someone needs help in the face of prejudice or violence, they can easily recognize you as someone who is willing to step forward and assist them.  

5) Donate and volunteer.  Support our institutions against corruption by those in power.  Donate to the ACLU so they can take the Trump administration to court if they violate the constitution.  On Last Week Tonight, John Oliver also suggested the following organizations that will need your support in the coming years:  Planned Parenthood, Center for Reproductive Rights, Natural Resources Defense Council, The International Refugee Assistance Project, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, The Trevor Project, and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

6) If you're going to post articles on facebook, make sure that they actually add something to the conversation.  An endless parade of articles bashing one side or the other will do no good.  It will just wear people out and reinforce your echo chamber.  Post articles that bring up a new point of view that you hadn't thought of before.  Post articles that offer solutions instead of just complaining about problems. 

Senator Ó Riordáin said that we are at "an ugly international crossroad" in history.  He is probably right.  But this pivotal moment could be remembered in one of two ways: as the time when the world slid into darkness once again, as it did in WWII...or as the time when people rose up en masse to defend the free society that our ancestors sacrificed so much to attain.  The level of prosperity, freedom, equality, and rule of law that Americans enjoy right now is not normal.  It is an extraordinary anomaly in history.  We have both so much to lose and so much to fight for.  We've already made serious mistakes that have brought us to this point, but it is up to every one of us, individually, to reverse the tide of hate and ignorance, and preserve the highest and best attainments of human civilization.  Do not run.  Do not move to Canada.  Stand by your country.  Count your blessings, and fight for every single one of them. 

West Coast Road Trip - Eugene & Portland

On the way up to Portland, Liz and I stopped in Eugene for an evening to visit my friend Sarah.  She and her boyfriend took us out to dinner at Sizzle Pie, a pizza place with grungy decor and surprisingly delicious and creative pizzas.  We sat at the picnic tables outside to eat our food, across the street from a pile of hippies on  a public bench who serenaded all of downtown Eugene with numerous songs played on the same two chords over and over again, including the angriest version of "You Are My Sunshine" that I've ever heard.  (After a while the police came over, along with a couple of grumpy old men, and the impromptu hippie band was disbanded).

DESTINATION #4

Portland was surprising--and not in the ways that I expected.  Anyone who's ever seen Portlandia has images of a hippie-hipster (hippiester) Mecca that's all about green living, radically ridiculous ideas about art and life, and people with weird hair cuts.  But Portland had a surprisingly industrial look.  We were couchsurfing at someone's apartment in the downtown area (right by the river), and we were surrounded on all sides by Steampunk-esque metal bridges, elevated highways, construction projects, and not-quite-sky-scrapers.  You can hear the trains booming and blaring all night.

Our first day there was quite lazy.  We didn't sleep very well (...trains...), so we didn't get up till noon-ish, and, after a little internet research, decided to get brunch at a place called Mother's Bistro and Bar.  Doesn't sound like anything special, right?  Imagine Sherlock-style wallpaper (and furniture upholstered to match), glass chandeliers, mirrors, sleek black cabinets, and waiters who sing along with the music while they dash around taking everyone's orders by memory.  On second thought, I'll spare you the imagining--here are some pictures.  

West Coast Road Trip - Visalia & San Francisco

After leaving LA, my sister and I drove north through thick, rolling hills that looked like they were covered in dark, yellow velvet.  We were headed to the small town of Visalia to visit my friends Alex and Catharine.  When we arrived in the evening, we had a wonderful dinner complete with homemade sangria.  ^_^

The next day we all went downtown to Brewbaker's bar & restaurant to see the final match of the FIFA World Cup: Germany vs. Argentina.  Now, I'm not a soccer person at all.  I played for about three years when I was in elementary school, but I never followed professional soccer.  I've gotta say though, this was really fun--especially since Catharine's brother is a big soccer fan and he was there to get us up to speed on everything that was going on.  It's always so much more fun doing anything when you have an enthusiast present.  :-)

It was a relatively short visit, and later that afternoon we drove on to...

DESTINATION #3

San Francisco: a suburban city, with rows of delicately painted, life-sized doll houses lining street after street, and a seemingly endless parade of dog-owners who don't believe in using leashes.  It was both self-consciously chic and deliberately squalid.  Fancy boutiques share the same block as tie-dyed tattoo parlors; young hippie-hobos and their half-starved dogs walk right by ladies in expensive, skanky fripperie; scruffy bikers without shoes coast down the street, yoga mats strapped to their backs.  SF can be surreal in the extreme.

West Coast Road Trip - LA

DESTINATION #2

From Las Vegas, Liz and I drove straight on to LA where we shifted gears from being tourists to being visitors.  (Hence the relative lack of pictures in this post).  We have a number of cousins and friends out there, and my friend Whitney was kind enough to let us stay at her apartment even though she and her husband would be out of town for most of our stay.  It was a hot day, so we enjoyed a swim in the pool outside where I did my typical Gemini thing by constantly swimming around, doing underwater flips, climbing out and then dive-bombing back in, and my sister did her typical Taurus thing by clinging to the side of the pool and lounging like a starfish.  

Whitney and Daniel had to finish packing for their trip, but that didn't stop me and Whitney from staying up late chatting.  She and her husband left early the next morning, but Liz and I slept in.  Then met up with an old friend of mine for lunch, where she told us all about her latest relationship drama.

This friend has more relationship drama in her life than anyone else I know, and I'm pretty sure it's not because of her personality--it's because she's gay.  She'd just broken up with yet another girlfriend who comes from a severely homophobic family.  My friend is out of the closet but the other girl was not, and the two of them had been dating secretly for almost a year.  My friend later started to think that this girl was cheating on her with a guy they both knew, and as the evidence for this piled up, she eventually ended the relationship.   This is the second time that she's gone through this exact sequence of events.  The last time, her ex-girlfriend ended up getting pregnant by, and later marrying, the guy in question.  

Now, I don't know if those girls just started dating a guy on the side because they actually wanted to, or because they were just desperate to cover up their own homosexuality; but either way, my friend's life would be a lot simpler if she could openly date anyone she wanted--without worrying about their family disowning them when they find out.  Not to mention that her girlfriend wouldn't be able to get away with two-timing so easily if everyone knew that she was already in a relationship with my friend.  It just goes to show that, even though my friend is out of the closet and everyone in her life is very accepting of it, she's still deeply affected by other people's homophobia--even the homophobia of people she's never met. 

Later that evening, Liz and I went to see our cousins Christina and Colleen.  We ate out at M Street Kitchen in Santa Monica (which is an excellent place), and we swapped family stories about our parents, mostly about when the five Duffy siblings were little hoodlums growing up in the 60's, before they became Respectable People.   My personal favorite story, one of which I was previously unaware, involves the time when they apparently all got high and wallpapered their entire basement in tin foil.  (My father denies having been a part of this.)

West Coast Road Trip - VEGAS

PROLOGUE

For some months, my sister and I had been planning to embark on a 5-week, 4,000-mile road trip along the west coast of the United States and Canada.  Due to money restraints (and because we wanted this to be a Real American Road Trip) we decided to be reasonably ridiculous and drive the entire way.  So, on July 6th, 2014, in a beat-up Toyota Corolla named Wong Foo with 150,000 miles on it, we set out from home at the crack of dawn.  The first day of our trip was not terribly exciting because it involved a 15-hour stint from from Chicago to Denver, CO.  On the second day, however, we came to the deserts of eastern Utah, which have some of the most beautiful landscapes I've ever seen.  

You can just barely see me standing on top!

DESTINATION #1

 

When Liz and I first arrived in Vegas, it was late at night and the city was spread out before us, lit up like a circuit board.  One of the first things we saw as we drove in were three billboards: one for diamonds, one for plastic surgery, and one for a divorce & custody lawyer.  Vegas mores in a nutshell.  
I think my sister summed it up best when she said that the entire point of Vegas is to take everything wrong with America, super-size it, glitz it up, and display it proudly.  Example: the Heart Attack Grill, a restaurant that advertises having the fattiest foods in the world.  (People over 350 lbs eat free!)

Upcoming Referendum on Legislative Maps in Illinois - Nov. 4, 2014!

Remember that article I wrote a few months back, arguing for an end to gerrymandering in Illinois?  Well, turns out there's an organization called Yes for Independent Maps, and they've been collecting signatures to get the issue on the ballot at this November's election!  They needed to collect 300,000 signatures of registered Illinois voters in order to put their proposed amendment on the ballot--and they succeeded!  I managed to get on board just in time to get my own copy of their petition, and I collected signatures and sent them in just under the deadline.  On May 1st, they'll have a celebration breakfast in downtown Chicago, load the petitions on to a semi-truck, and drive them down to Springfield where they will officially submit them.  The state will then cross-check the signatures and addresses on the petitions.  If the total of legitimate signatures is over 300,000, then their will be a referendum on the amendment on Nov. 4, 2014.   The residents of Illinois can vote either yes or no.  

Some brief facts about the campaign:
The Illinois Independent Redistricting Amendment would establish independent commission to draw the electoral maps.   
This commission would consist of 11 non-politicians: four Democrats, four Republicans and three independents.
This amendment would effect redistricting for state legislators only, not federal legislators.  

To see a summary and complete draft of the amendment, click here.  



Other links of interest: 

CLTV Interview with campaign manager, Michael Kolenc.

Chicago Tribune Editorial: A fair legislative map means better Democratic candidates

Gerrymandering: Destroying our Democracy from the Ground Up

The Root Cause?
It's becoming a fairly common refrain these days that the extreme political dysfunction in the US Congress is primarily caused by gerrymandering.  I've seen it in the NY Times, the Economist, and elsewhere, but I'm not entirely sure how many people are really aware of it yet.  

Just a quick run-through: every 10 years, new lines have to be drawn on every state map to determine which voters will belong to which district.  This is called redistricting.  This is done to balance out shifts, increases, or decreases in the populations of each district.  Gerrymandering is when a certain political party draws the the lines of the voting districts to their own advantage.  For example, Republicans might draw the lines so that all the largely Republican communities will fall in one district, therefore making that a "safe" district--a.k.a. a district in which a Democrat has no chance of winning.  A Democrat would do the same thing with Democratic communities.  That's how you end up with districts that look like this: 

 
Ridiculous, no?  

Okay, it might look ridiculous on paper, but why is this really such a big deal?  I mean, everyone's votes are still being represented right?  What difference does it really make?

The difference is this: when districts are gerrymandered so that they're overwhelmingly conservative or overwhelmingly liberal, you end up electing extremely conservative or extremely liberal politicians.  Politicians from these districts don't need to win over the "moderates" and the "swing voters"--they only need to seriously compete with other members of their own party in the primaries.  Once that vote is secured, it's easy sailing for them in the main election.  In order to secure their jobs, they only have to toe the party line.  If they compromise with the other party, they're likely to lose support in the district that elected them.  When being moderate is a threat to their personal job security, it's in their best interest to stick to extremes.  That's exactly what we have in our Congress right now.  How can we expect these politicians to compromise when doing so would lose them the next election?  This is how our Congress can have one of its lowest approval ratings in history (between 5 and 10%, depending on which polls you look at), and yet most of the extremist politicians who are causing the current grid-lock are in no real danger of losing their jobs in the next election.  Our current political system seriously discourages compromise and makes it almost impossible to put moderate politicians in office.  Getting rid of gerrymandering could undo many of the problems that are paralyzing our country. 

But what exactly are the rules that govern redistricting?  Under what circumstances is gerrymandering allowed?  Are there limits on it?  And who decides who gets to draw the lines anyways? 

I decided to look into it a little more myself, and I found this fabulous little website: 
All About Redistricting: Professor Justin Levitt's guide to drawing the electoral lines

It's chock full of all the basic info about gerrymandering.  Here's the short version:


There are only two federal laws that relate to gerrymandering.  

1)  Each district must  be roughly equal in population.  The exact rules on what constitutes "roughly equal" vary from state to state.

2) Gerrymandering cannot be used to break up minorities into different districts so that their share of the vote in each district becomes insignificant.  On the flipside, "packing" as many minorities as possible into as few districts as possible is also illegal.  
(For a fuller explanation on this, see here).

In short, you cannot gerrymander with minority groups, but you can gerrymander with political parties all you want.  


Aside from these two federal laws, redistricting laws are entirely up to each state.  
In this part of the website you can look up the exact laws about redistricting, state by state.
All About Redistricting - Who Draws the Lines?

For congressional (a.k.a., for the Federal legislature, rather than State legislature) redistricting is done basically one of three ways.  The lines can be drawn by :

1) an independent commission of non-politicians
2) a bipartisan commission of state politicians
3) the state legislature, which then votes on whether or not to pass the new district maps.  In most states, this vote requires only a simple majority (over 50%) in order to pass.  


Currently, 2 states (Hawaii and New Jersey) use an independent commission.  4 states (Arizona, California, Idaho, and Washington) use a bipartisan commission.  7 states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North & South Dakota, Wyoming, and Vermont) do not need to draw congressional districts because they only have one Representative in the House.  

That leaves 37 states where redistricting is done either primarily or entirely by the state legislature.  That means that whichever party controls the state legislature has complete control over the way congressional districts are drawn.  Obviously, this is not good for creating fair district maps.

An article from Dec. 14, 2012, in the New York Times explains:

“In states where Republicans controlled the [redistricting] process, […] their candidates won roughly 53 percent of the vote—and 72 percent of the seats. And in the states where Democrats controlled the process, their candidates won about 56 percent of the vote and 71 percent of the seats.

An analysis by The New York Times of states where courts, commissions or divided governments drew the maps found a much smaller disparity between the share of the popular vote and the number of seats won in Congress.”

In other words, not only does gerrymandering lead to an increased tendency to elect extreme right- or left-wing politicians, but also a gross disparity between the number of actual votes won vs. the number of seats won by either party.   

The House of Representatives is supposed to be the federal institution which most accurately reflects the will, constitution, and diversity of the people.  With our current system, it does not.  As long as gerrymandering continues, there will be very little chance of electing more moderate candidates or honoring the popular vote in each state.  The U.S. government will be thrown into paralysis again and again, and the world will wonder why the most powerful country on earth can’t accomplish even the most basic things to keep the itself running.   

Unfortunately, this is not an issue that can be resolved at the federal level.  The passage of a federal ban on gerrymandering is basically impossible since many of the legislators themselves would lose their jobs if it passes.   This issue must be dealt with state by state.  Even that will be extremely difficult since our state legislators probably rely on gerrymandered districts to secure their own jobs.  However, 6 states already use independent or bipartisan commissions to do their redistricting.  That proves it can be done.  We need more states to do this.  The power of redistricting must be taken out of the hands of our state legislatures.  

The Petition

I've started a petition to the Governor and State Legislature of Illinois to end gerrymandering by appointing an independent or bipartisan commission for redistricting.  Anyone who lives or votes in Illinois, I ask you to please sign this and pass it on to as many people as you can.  To people who live in other states, I encourage you to start petitions of your own, start raising awareness of this issue, and try to end gerrymandering in your own state.   Please do what you can, even if it's only a little.  Gerrymandering is eating away at the very heart of our democracy.  The ineptitude of our government is harming everyone, and if we want our country to remain strong, democratic, and fair, we have to do something about this.  

Click here to see my Petition to End Gerrymandering in Illinois



Sources of inspiration for this post:

The GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN and REPEATED DEBT CEILING CRISES

All About Redistricting: Professor Justin Levitt's guide to drawing the electoral lines 

"How the Shutdown Plays in Peoria" - The Economist, Oct. 12, 2013
(An article from a British newspaper that, coincidentally, specifically talks about gerrymandering in Illinois)

"How Maps Helped Republicans Keep an Edge in the House" - The New York Times, Dec. 14, 2012