logo
Texas pushes our democracy closer to the brink

Texas pushes our democracy closer to the brink

Yahoo16 hours ago
In 1990, I helped elect Texas' most recent Democratic governor (Ann Richards) and lieutenant governor (Bob Bullock). The following year, as an adviser to Lt. Gov. Bullock, I was part of the redistricting effort following the 1990 census. Oh, how politics and policy have changed today in the state I still call home.
The maps drawn in 1991 favored Democratic politicians, but Bullock went out of his way to invite Republicans in to be part of the redistricting discussion and provide input. A number of the congressional and state legislative districts were considered swing seats, which many of us considered good for our state and country.
It seems that since 1991, as new technology allows increased political gerrymandering and the spread of partisan polarization, politicians have chosen to drastically reduce the number of swing seats in any given state. And as voters inherently dislike politicians' choosing their voters through gerrymandering, there has been a rise in citizen-led independent redistricting commissions. Michigan is the best example of that ideal in politics, and its commission functioned very well in reducing gerrymandering and increasing the number of swing districts.
But now, the country is going in the exact opposite direction. On Wednesday, the Texas legislature passed a highly unusual mid-decade redistricting map, with the goal of eliminating five 'Democratic' districts. California and other Democratic-leaning states are threatening to do the same to 'Republican' districts.
I completely understand this reaction. We can't have a representative democracy if blue states follow the ideal of independent redistricting and reduce partisan districts while red states follow raw partisan politics and create as many GOP districts as possible. In the short term, if Democrats don't draw partisan districts, they would most likely be ceding a permanent majority to the GOP in the House of Representatives.
None of this is good for our democracy. Drawing nearly every district as uncompetitive in a general election means we have elections decided by a few partisans, not the broader electorate. And governance becomes more partisan as there are fewer politicians willing to compromise or to vote with the other side. This shift is already evident in Washington over the last few years, and it will only get worse as we have more red and blue districts and fewer purple ones.
This all reminds me of the proliferation of nuclear weapons: As each country matches or one-ups the other, it increases the risk of 'MAD' — mutually assured destruction. In this case, the long-term result of such a race to the bottom is the destruction of our representative democracy. So what is the solution?
I think the path out of this radioactive debate is threefold:
First, in the short term, Democrats must not unilaterally disarm. The GOP must understand that its efforts to gain a partisan edge will be minimal compared with the damage to democracy.
Second, we must all speak out against the Republicans who have brought us to the brink of political war. This is especially true in Texas, which is the epicenter of this controversy. And voters must hold Texas Republican politicians accountable at the ballot box. What would be poetic justice is if the new GOP-drawn districts in Texas backfire and voters replace Republicans with Democrats in Congress.
Finally, it is clearer than ever that while citizen-led independent redistricting commissions are necessary, they need to be instituted in every state in a similar way. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced a bill with this goal in 2021, but Republicans blocked it. Gerrymandering remains unpopular with Americans, and as the redistricting brinkmanship continues, I think the necessity of a nationwide solution will become more and more apparent and agreeable to voters.
As the weaponization of redistricting moves from Texas to California and other states, the fight for democracy continues. Maybe this race to the bottom will have to continue before we can come together, reverse course and give everyone a real voice in their representation. In the short term, this trend is incredibly scary, but in the long term, I still have trust in American voters.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Here's where all the legal cases against President Donald Trump stand since his return to the White House
Here's where all the legal cases against President Donald Trump stand since his return to the White House

Chicago Tribune

timea few seconds ago

  • Chicago Tribune

Here's where all the legal cases against President Donald Trump stand since his return to the White House

Before he battled his way back to the White House, President Donald Trump was in court battling a slew of civil lawsuits and criminal charges that threatened to upend his finances and take away his freedom. Those cases have mostly abated since his return to office, albeit with some loose ends. On Thursday, Trump declared 'total victory' after an appeals court threw out a massive financial penalty in New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit alleging that he exaggerated his wealth and the value of marquee assets like Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago. Other punishments affecting Trump's business still apply, but they can be paused pending further appeals. Since Trump's reelection in November, four separate criminal cases — including his hush money conviction and allegations of election interference and illegally hoarding classified documents — have either been dropped, resolved or put aside. On the civil side, several high-profile lawsuits against Trump have been quietly working their way through the appeals process. Here's a look at some of Trump's criminal and civil cases and where they stand now: Trump became the first former U.S. president convicted of felonies when a New York jury found him guilty in May 2024 of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex. Though Trump could have faced jail time, Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan in January sentenced him instead to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him any punishment. Trump is appealing the conviction. Trump was set to take office just days later, and Merchan said he had to respect Trump's upcoming legal protections as president, even wishing him 'Godspeed as you assume your second term in office.' In August 2023, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump and 18 others with participating in a scheme to illegally try to overturn his narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Willis cited Trump's January 2021 phone call to Georgia's secretary of state, an effort to replace Georgia's Democratic presidential electors with ones who would vote for Trump, harassment of a Fulton County election worker and the unauthorized copying of data and software from elections equipment. But the case stalled over revelations Willis had been in a relationship with the man she appointed to prosecute it. A state appeals court in December removed Willis from the case. She has appealed that decision to the Georgia Supreme Court, but even if the high court takes the case and decides in her favor, it's unlikely she can pursue criminal charges against Trump while he's in office. Special counsel Jack Smith charged Trump in August 2023 with conspiring to overturn the results of his election loss to President Joe Biden in the run-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Prosecutors allege Trump and his allies knowingly pushed election fraud lies to push state officials to overturn Biden's win and pressured Vice President Mike Pence to disrupt the ceremonial counting of electoral votes. But Smith moved to drop the case after Trump won reelection in November. Longstanding Justice Department policy says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution. In a separate prosecution, Smith charged Trump in June 2023 with illegally retaining classified documents he took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago after he left office in January 2021, and then obstructing government demands to give them back. Prosecutors filed additional charges the following month, accusing Trump of showing a Pentagon 'plan of attack' to visitors at his golf club in New Jersey. Smith also moved to drop that case after Trump's election victory. In May 2023, a federal jury found that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million. In January 2024, a second jury awarded Carroll an additional $83.3 million in damages for comments Trump had made about her while he was president, finding that they were defamatory. Trump is appealing that decision. He also appealed the first jury decision, but a federal appeals court in December upheld it and then declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. On Thursday, a five-judge panel of New York's mid-level Appellate Division overturned Trump's whopping monetary penalty in James' lawsuit while narrowly endorsing a lower court's finding that he engaged in fraud by padding his wealth on financial statements provided to lenders and insurers. The judges ruled that the penalty — which soared to $515 million with interest tacked on each day — violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on excessive fines. At the same time, they left in place other punishments, including a bans on Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. The decision will almost certainly be appealed to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, and the upheld punishments can be paused until that court rules.

Judge Hands Trump Admin Major Legal Loss on Alligator Alcatraz
Judge Hands Trump Admin Major Legal Loss on Alligator Alcatraz

Newsweek

time2 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Judge Hands Trump Admin Major Legal Loss on Alligator Alcatraz

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams landed a legal blow to the Trump administration Thursday night in a ruling on Alligator Alcatraz, banning site expansion and new detainees at the immigration detention center at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport. The judge is giving the administration 60 days to remove the fencing, gas, sewage, lighting, generators and "waste receptacles that were installed to support this project." Newsweek reached out to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) via email for additional comment Thursday night. Why It Matters The detention center has been a focal point of President Donald Trump's second-term immigration platform, drawing praise from his supporters and a flood of criticism from Democrats, civil rights groups, environmentalists and others. What To Know The order comes on the heels of lawsuits challenging the facility's potential damage to the environment on the protected Florida Everglades. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians previously sued based on their ties to the land and potential disruptions to water and food supply, the court document reviewed by Newsweek says. Vehicles exit Alligator Alcatraz on August 14 in Ochopee, Florida. (Photo by) Vehicles exit Alligator Alcatraz on August 14 in Ochopee, Florida. (Photo by) What Happens Next It is immediately unknown if the Trump administration plans to appeal the ruling. This is a developing story that will be updated with additional information.

Judge bars Florida from bringing new detainees into 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center
Judge bars Florida from bringing new detainees into 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center

USA Today

time31 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Judge bars Florida from bringing new detainees into 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Aug. 21 barred President Donald Trump's administration and the state of Florida from bringing new detainees into a remote migrant detention center in the Florida Everglades dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz." U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams also ordered the dismantling of some aspects of the facility as current detainees are moved out, according to a court filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The judge sided with environmental groups who had said the facility is endangering the Everglades and its wildlife. 'Help me!': Democrats decry 'vile' conditions at 'Alligator Alcatraz' immigrant prison (Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Himani Sarkar)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store