I don’t know enough about Texas politics, state laws, or its Congressional districts to make an intelligent comment about the plan to redistrict Texas’s Congressional districts. I think that most of what we’re hearing is just political posturing.
As I’ve said before I think that Congressional districts should be compact and within county and municipal boundaries. I would support amending the Constitution to that effect. I don’t believe there is any prospect of that short of a Constitutional convention which would be risky.
I also think that Congress should pass a law prohibiting redistricting other than following a decennial census. It’s my understanding that such a law is making its way through the House.
Just for amusement here’s the Illinois 4th Congressional District:
Its original purpose was to ensure that Chicago would elect a Hispanic representative. Such contortions were deemed necessary following the 1990 census but that’s certainly not the case anymore. I’m not sure what purpose is actually served by it now.
Fundamentally, the problem is that partisans, especially the GoP currently, want to maintain power not just by winning elections, but also by fixing the game. Creating more GoP-aligned, uncompetitive districts is one thing that does that.
And yes, partisan and other kinds of gerrymandering have been around for a long time, but the difference here is one of scope and scale.
I think that more than scope and scale the difference is timing and rate of onset.
Again, look at the Illinois districting map. That’s just about as big in scope and scale as you can get.
AFAICT the Illinois wasn’t redrawn just ahead of the next election instead of every 10 years like most places, which is happening in Texas. I would prefer that rules be consistent from state to state instead of having a race to the bottom.
Steve
Timing and rate of onset is probably a better way to put it.
There’s also intent. Creating a district to ensure the election of a Hispanic representative during a normal map redrawing (which Wikipedia says “was created after federal courts ordered the creation of a majority-Hispanic district in the Chicago area”) is different than wanting to redistrict for the strategic purpose of maximizing the number of partisan seats in the next election.
This sets the stage for the possibility that we will start to see legislatures redistrict every two years, prior to each Congressional election.
Gerrymandering refers to Founding Father and 5th Vice President Elbridge Thomas Gerry and how his Democrat-Republican Party designed voting districts in Massachusetts. That’s very late 18th and very early 19th Century. So “gerrymandering,” like Congressional corruption, is part of American Constitutional practice and entirely normal behavior for all politicians.
And now Trump supposedly wants another census, and of course, wants to exclude certain people.
That requires a multi-part answer.
1. I think that for any decennial census to be Constitutional it must include all of those residing in the states not just citizens.
2. Apportionment is determined based on the decennial census.
3. I see no barrier to conducting additional censuses beyond the decennial census according to any rules whatever. Such censuses should not be used for appointment.
IMO the strongest argument against the status quo depends on whether illegal immigrants are being taxed. I suspect they are not, in fact, paying what they should in federal taxes. If the SCOTUS were to interpret in that way it would affect appointionment, birthright citizenship, and, potentially, taxation.
Just to let off a little steam and irrelevant to this thread, on another site I have noted that the BLS contracts its employment and inflation surveys out to the Census Bureau. It designs, manages, and analyzes the data itself but does not collect the data itself. The BLS says that very clearly on its official website. Check the FAQs page.
People are responding to that in the angriest way possible. That’s very frustrating to me.
Dave Schuler: I see no barrier to conducting additional censuses beyond the decennial census according to any rules whatever.
Experts in data collection say that having the government ask about immigration status would decrease responses from immigrant communities, even those who have legal permanent status or citizenship. The Trump administration has shown that the executive can break down legal barriers to privacy, meaning they could hypothetically use the survey data to target immigrant communities, so it is not an unfounded concern. The count of persons is constitutionally paramount.
Dave Schuler: IMO the strongest argument against the status quo depends on whether illegal immigrants are being taxed. I suspect they are not, in fact, paying what they should in federal taxes.
So, if your parents evaded paying federal tax, you aren’t a citizen? Lots of people avoid, if not evade, paying taxes. Some billionaires legally avoid paying any income tax, so does that mean their children aren’t citizens either? Guess that gets filed under “paying what they should”. Most illegal immigrants pay federal income taxes using an ITIN. But most don’t end up owing federal income taxes due to low income.
In any case, the actual provision (Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2) refers to “Indians not taxed”, from a time when Indian tribes were quasi-independent nations under the U.S. Constitution. However, that distinction with regards to citizenship was ended with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Just to throw another related topic into the discussion, according to the Census bureau, the 2020 census had some pretty significant errors. AR, FL, IL, MS, TN, and TX had significant undercounts. Meanwhile, DE, HI, MA, MN, NY, OH, RI and UT had significant overcounts.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/2020-census-undercount-overcount-rates-by-state.html
Minnesota, Rhode Island and Colorado each received an extra Congressional seat they did not deserve, while Florida lost two seats and Texas one due to the error at the Census Bureau. While the Census bureau admits the error, there really isn’t a remedy.
That it’s the strongest argument doesn’t imply it’s a strong argument. I think that short of Constitutional amendments apportionment including illegal immigrants and birthright citizenship are here to stay.