It is finally here, finally published, the final part of my 7-part series A New U.S. Constitution. It has been a long time coming hasn’t it? My apologies for its delay. When I began this series in September and October 2022 I had no idea it would be delayed repeatedly due to my living situation these last four years. I had little idea just how busy I was to become.

But that is life, is it not? Frequently we have unexpected, unforeseen events and circumstances throughout our journey that can redirect one’s daily life or turn it upside down completely. That is precisely what happened to me: my Mom’s severe dementia became Early Alzheimer’s Disease. And my daily/nightly schedule is dominated by her needs and care between 10-14 hours per day and night, 365, no breaks except when she’s away on an infrequent 5-night respite for my sanity. As many of you know, the disease only gets worse. It is this prognosis and reality that has derailed my previous free-time and efforts to completing this series in a timely manner.

Even so, enough about lost time and her disease and on to the conclusion of A New U.S. Constitution.

When we left off with Part 6, I stated that in this part I would delve into the detailed problems of Gerrymandering, the conclusion, and consequently gerrymandering was further exacerbated by the 2019 Supreme Court ruling of Rucho v. Common Cause. That SCOTUS decision had tremendous detrimental affects on this republic democracy causing distortions upon election outcomes today. I also stated in Part 6 that this nation’s citizens, along with our public officials at state and federal levels, must construct a 21^st-century electing system that allows proportional representation. Proportional representation reflects the correct definition of a republic democracy, the one that most all of our Founding Fathers intended within the Charters of Freedom.

Gerrymandering Under the Microscope

Generally speaking, gerrymandering in the United States is the long standing practice of drawing, or redrawing, geographical boundaries of electoral districts in an intended manner that gives your political party a clear advantage over your (hated?) political rivals, i.e. partisan gerrymandering. In this way it can also (greatly?) dilute the voting power of undesirable ethnic and/or linguistic minority groups opposing your political party, i.e. racial gerrymandering. This legalized political and racial discrimination during elections was begun in 1812 with a law enacted by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry. So… what is gerrymandering in a more specific, explicit form?

Today, this legalized discrimination and partitioning of registered U.S. voters, or to-be registered voters, looks like this in 2011 to the present day:

…in states where Republicans drew the [geographical] lines, they won 72% of the [legislative] seats with just 53% of the [total] votes [cast]; in states where Democrats drew the lines, they won 71% of the seats with just 56% of [total] votes [cast].

— Lawrence Lessig, “Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress“, p. 27.

State government trifectas is a popular term that describes one political party’s control and domination over 1) a state’s governorship and both chambers of the state’s legislature, i.e. 2) the senate chamber and 3) the house chamber, thus making the trifecta. “As of September 18, 2024, there are 23 Republican trifectas, 17 Democratic trifectas, and 10 divided governments where neither party holds trifecta control” according to BallotPedia.org. For at least six years from 2015 until 2021, then later fortified over the Trump years (2017–2021), the Mitch McConnell years (1985–2024)—now Senate Minority Leader—the Republican domination through gerrymandering, and today through Senator McConnell, has greatly strengthened partisan and racial gerrymandering in many states, 28-states out of 50 to be precise. And it is well-known what political-racial minority group in America has been losing ground the last 40-years: white voters. Yet, remarkably white American voters maintain disproportionate control and power in most state legislatures, particularly in states with sparse population densities, or a few people living on large swathes of land.

This glaring imbalance begs the question, at least for me… Today, do our state and federal governments represent actual American citizens/voters, the people, or do they represent land-sizes, great non-human areas, non-voters and wealthy business-corporations? The latter, which is to say 18^th-century early 19^th-century farmers, large plantation owners, etc., represented what the United States was in the distant past, barring of course mega-wealthy corporations. However, in 21^st-century America, democracy should represent the former, that is to say the live and breathing individual American humans, voters, citizens, and their economic GDP contributions just as equally, if not more, but not a business entity such as corporate America. But to the demise of our democracy today Americans are being less and less represented by their governments and politicians. Today, it is not an actual representation of the American populous, individual citizens. And that folks, is NOT a republic democracy in its purest raw form.

A study in 2019 revealed that over the past few election decades, gerrymandering had shifted election outcomes for as many as 59-60 of 435 legislative seats in the House of Representatives. That is a significant shift given the wide ethnic cultural diversity of the American population, i.e. nonwhites. Gerrymandering causes several major controversies about whether or not we truly are a republic democracy, as we publicly proclaim to the world, and perhaps the biggest controversy is whether our Founding Fathers intended us to be back in 1781–1800 (i.e. bound to and living in the 18^th-century accordingly) or rather progressing along with the times, with the living, not the dead.

The Rucho v Common Cause SCOTUS Decision

You can easily Google or search on your own what the Rucho v Common Cause Landmark Supreme Court decision was all about. However, in my own opinion and background in American history, Social Studies, and U.S. federal and state government as a former certified/licensed educator/teacher, I would personally declare that the Supreme Court’s decision was a disgraceful cop-out. As Wikipedia (and others) define the landmark decision, it was:

[As the Court determined] partisan gerrymandering may be “incompatible with democratic principles”, the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.

And yet, one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s basic duties is to do exactly what they claimed they couldn’t do, “review allegations” dealing with our Constitution’s “democratic principles.” And over the last 245-years of this country’s existence, that is precisely what the Supreme Court was created to do and to have legal oversight over the legislative and executive branches, i.e. Checks and Balances! They cowardly copped-out on their sworn responsibility to properly interpret the spirit of our Charters of Freedom and how they apply, and specifically our federal Constitution’s interpretation and application. Here is what happened in 2016 in the words of George W. Van Cleve:

In Rucho, plaintiffs in two companion cases—one from North Carolina and one from Maryland—challenged those states’ congressional district maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. The facts of Rucho provide good examples of gerrymandering.  In North Carolina, Republicans who controlled its state legislature had redrawn its congressional district boundaries to maintain a 10-3 Republican congressional seat advantage, despite the fact that just a few years previously Democratic candidates had received a majority of the statewide congressional vote.  In 2016, North Carolina Republicans won 10 out of 13 seats despite receiving only 53 percent of the statewide vote; in 2018, they won 9 out of 12 districts with 50 percent of the vote.

— Rucho, Kagan, Justice, dissent (joined by all minority Justices), 139 S. Ct. 2484, 2509-11.

Essentially, today’s gerrymandering is no different than adjusting the rules, or rigging the game to your favor in order to win as many times as possible. I ask you, is that a pure fair market, an equal playing field for everyone in a supposedly free-enterprise capitalistic model that so many radical patriots here today rave about and proclaim as their “democracy, freedom, and liberty?” No, it is not. It is nothing but cheating in order to gain an upper-hand over your opponents. That is not a republic democracy.

And yet, the Supreme Court cowardly washed their hands of responsibility toward Constitutional limits to get in bed with partisan and racial gerrymandering, no matter how enormously it distorts, maligns fair election outcomes. In 2019 the Supreme Court succumbed to ideological lines of pressure instead of to the U.S. Constitution, the rule of objective law, and they handed power over to partisan, discriminatory prejudices of geographic gerrymandering. And yet still, our Constitution does indeed contain very specific provisions that allow the court oversight, supervisory authority over fair or unfair elections. The SCOTUS blatantly ignored it.

Justice Kagan’s vigorous—indeed scathing—dissent in Rucho, written on behalf of four justices, insisted that the Constitution required an end to partisan gerrymandering because it violated several provisions of the Constitution and directly undermined democracy.

— George W. Van Cleve, “Making a New American Constitution.” Maroon Bells Press. Kindle Edition, 2020

Furthermore, Kagan’s dissent argues that our long history of partisan racial gerrymandering has always been based upon the majority, and that is completely irrelevant. Why? Because the practice of gerrymandering completely FAILS to meet the modern, proper democratic standards of what it means to be truly a republic democracy. One must remember that we are no longer living in the late 18^th-century!

However, the Rucho v Common Cause Supreme Court decision has even further ramifications for our future elections and the views, the positions and roles of the Supreme Court in our correct interpretations of our Constitutional system, not just in the 18^th-century, but more importantly the 21^st-century! Remember, Thomas Jefferson and the other five core Founding Fathers all agreed that:

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet, it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; & that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.

— Thomas Jefferson, in a personal letter to James Madison, Sept. 6, 1789.

The very basic legislative essentials of our Constitution and other sacred democratic documents were all designed to be adjusted, to be tweaked, to be updated as necessary, to present times and conditions—not bound by or to the dead. Therefore, let us fully understand the many curses of political and racial gerrymandering discrimination we have presently:

Gerrymandering is an important factor in preventing the emergence of such national proportional representation.  It helps block changes in the partisan balance in government office holding even if developing a better balance between the major parties is what many, or perhaps even most, voters in our divided country would prefer.  By preventing a partisan balance that reflects voters’ choices, it also hinders the development of more bipartisan, consensus policies by the national government, something many voters would quite likely also prefer.  Notably, however, the Court’s [2019] decision—and even the minority’s sharp challenge to it—both also effectively sanction our existing majoritarian electoral system, i.e., a two-party system that political scientists agree effectively discourages require proportional representation of minority parties.

— George W. Van Cleve, “Making A New American Constitution,” Maroon Bells Press. Kindle Edition, 2020

Proportional Representation – What Is It?

Throughout human history—going back many 100,000 years—humans have always had self-imposed biases and prejudices. Hence, it is no surprise that the concept of proportional representation in one’s ruling government has vehement proponents and vehement detractors based upon their own (unfounded?) biases and lifetime experiences. Or the same could be said based upon legitimate data and objective human experiences too. What is well-known and proven is that proportional representation may or may not always represent the majority opinion. That is not a bad thing.

Whether the diverse political-social landscape is or is not representing many viewpoints, the fact that its condition offers choices, choices other than one single dominant ideology (that could very well be evil and horrendous for the common good), a wider range of concepts will more often than not give civilizations more choices for a greater good. What MUST be present in a pure election system and governing is free civil discourse. Without free civil discourse, civilizations are destined for total collapse. Ideologies only represent a theory, something that is not tested or reflective of actual human experience. In other words, a concept-theory or ideology may not represent actual data, evidence, or real-life experiences of very actual living. That life-void is possibly a delusion, a life experience that only exists in one person’s own head. It simply does not represent the majority of experiences by humans.

So to be clear, our need, NO… our perceived requirement to think outside of our own selfish needs for a greater good, a greater nation, a noble concept that our own individual biases, our own individually centered ideals have to exist with multiple choices, with answers and consequences that sometimes make us uncomfortable, make us feel awkward, but done so in order to benefit those outside of ourselves. Our electoral system should be no different; we MUST allow it to function outside of individual biases, ideologies, and our own tiny miniscule perceptions.

Inside that framework, the entire election system can be freely examined outside of the political influences and enormous vested interests of our existing major political parties and their millions-billions of dollars that influence minds like a cancer. And even more significant, we should objectively examine our unelected Supreme Court Justices, whose SCOTUS members are political biased theoreticians and who have never had to face an election, much less run a federal government.

In the end, our Constitution’s major political institutions are irreparably flawed as is the basis for a modern representative government.  Our current institutions do not provide for adequate representation of the national popular will, for two reasons. 

1. First, they do not meet modern standards for democratic representation.  Our constitution now provides increased “generation-spanning” political power to Presidents and the Supreme Court.  More significantly it also allows both the presidency and the Senate to be controlled by minority parties.  Further, the Constitution, as now interpreted, allows unfettered gerrymandering to continue and permit the two major parties to exclude minority voices entirely from representation in Congress. That is the antithetical definition of democracy.
2. Second, under our current Constitution’s rules, presidential elections and the operations of Congress increasingly distort the popular will in ways that the Founding Fathers did not foresee, and could not have possibly foreseen the very probable consequences. They would not have approved this by any means.  The Constitution’s major institutions have failed, as a basis for representative government, and non-participatory Americans have willing allowed this. So apparently, it would seem, nothing can be done to remedy any of these growing shortcomings by means of free-standing constitutional amendments, by which a pure republic democracy could in fact change. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. A new Constitutional Convention could and will instead be necessary to cure us of these dysfunctional conditions.

Why do so many average Americans not know this? I have that answer.

One, for the last 3-4 decades Americans and one specific American political party has relentlessly attacked our public school systems in history, social studies, and state-federal government. These four areas of general middle-school and high school curriculums have been so reduced that American teenagers, now adults, have little clue as to what the core Founding Fathers intended for their nation. Most American 1^st thru 12^th grade public educational institutions exclude these four VITAL areas of American history/government. In private, religiously associated school curriculums these subject areas are non-existent. The Judeo-Christian (Greek, not Mishnaic Hebrew that was Jesus/Yeshua) Bible and its theological doctrines, are forced-taught… oppressively and relentlessly to indoctrinate. The GOP dresses up their prejudicial attacks via “school vouchers” for families of religious extremists.

Secondly, far too many American voters do not participate in their own governing, the very basic national privilege and virtue (or gift?) that our democracy still (barely) provides to them. Sad, very sad.

Nevertheless, there is still a chance for us to save this sinking ship that is American democracy. But the only way this can happen is for average Americans to seize their given rights as citizens to self-determine how they will be governed by participating in elections AND just as important, engage with their state and federal officials regularly. And vote, of course. If this is not done by at least 70% of our population, then this country is doomed, guaranteed. Unfortunately, for several decades, voter turnout rates have been around 32%–46% give or takes 0.5-1.5 percent points. Yes, that figure is well beyond appallingly dismal. No wonder this country is in the state that it is.

Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always

The Professor’s Convatorium © 2023 by Professor Taboo is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0