If you asked me to name one thing that seems politically feasible and would help fix what ails America, I’d tell you that it’s solving the problem of gerrymandered Congressional districts.
In a gerrymandered district, the general election is deliberately made noncompetitive. The district is gerrymandered so far to the left or right that the Democratic or Republican candidate will win the general election, no matter the candidate from the opposing party. Politicians know this and act accordingly. Republicans govern from the hard right to avoid a primary challenge that could cost them their seat; Democrats govern from the hard left for the same reason.
There’s also no reason to compromise in a gerrymandered world. In a fair general election, being known for compromise might win you a few votes from moderates in the opposing party, but those votes are irrelevant in today’s world. Elected officials stake out radical positions and refuse to compromise (thus avoiding primary challenges) and then win their general elections in gerrymandered districts. We, the unfortunate public, suffer the result. We live in a world without compromise or sanity.
This is what makes particularly galling Texas Republicans’ recent decision to engage in midcycle redistricting — gerrymandering districts in between the customary once in a decade (corresponding to a decennial census). Republicans want to create more safe Republican seats, increasing the odds that Republicans will maintain control of the House of Representatives in 2026. Democrats are of course threatening to respond in kind, proposing to engage in midcycle redistricting of their own to create more Democratic seats to offset the new Republican ones.
If you want to improve the American political system, let nonpartisan bodies design Congressional districts with a mandate to create as many competitive districts as reasonably possible. More competitive races would punish the loonies of both the right and left and would encourage legislative compromises. That would be a step in the right direction.
(I know that crafting Congressional districts is tricky, and creating competitive districts is hard. That’s fine. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Strive for more competitive districts. Let’s at least head the right way.)
Texas Republicans are running straight in the other direction. Shame on them. Shame on the Democrats, too, although one can at least understand that, if one party is going to gerrymander to keep control of Congress, the other party feels compelled to do its own gerrymandering to avoid ceding ground to its opponent.
Fixing gerrymandering is one thing that we should be able to do, and that would begin to cure American politics. But we seemingly won’t do it.
If you asked me to name one thing that would improve the legislative process a little bit, and shouldn’t be too hard to implement, it would be to ban trading of individual securities by members of Congress.
Certain members of Congress seem to have made a killing by buying or selling securities just before Congress took legislative action that benefited (or harmed) a particular industry. This stinks; it shouldn’t be allowed. All members of Congress should be required to invest only through mutual funds or blind trusts to avoid unfair and unseemly trading based on nonpublic information.
But Congress won’t pass that law.
Why not?
Senator Rick Scott objects to the idea that lawmakers should be required to put their holdings in mutual funds, implying this would diminish rich legislators’ investment returns, which just isn’t fair.
Cry me a river, you sanctimonious jerk.
Who says we need Rick Scott, or anyone vaguely like him, in Congress?
There are plenty of people with fewer investments than Scott who would be glad to serve in Congress even if stock trading by members of Congress were completely banned. Let’s elect one of those people instead of self-righteous assholes like Scott.
In fact, there are probably even a few rich people in this country who are able to think: “I’m going to serve in Congress for a short while. The interest of America matters more than my own personal self-interest, and I’m perfectly happy to sacrifice a portion of my investment returns for the brief time when I’m serving in Congress. America comes first; where do I sign up for a mutual fund or a blind trust?”
But Rick Scott doesn’t think that way.
That thought has apparently never entered his smug little brain.
I don’t know who’ll run against Scott when he’s next up for re-election, but if I were a Floridian, the choice is clear: Vote for the other guy.
Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.
The post Politicians Who Decline To Fix What Ails Us appeared first on Above the Law.
If you asked me to name one thing that seems politically feasible and would help fix what ails America, I’d tell you that it’s solving the problem of gerrymandered Congressional districts.
In a gerrymandered district, the general election is deliberately made noncompetitive. The district is gerrymandered so far to the left or right that the Democratic or Republican candidate will win the general election, no matter the candidate from the opposing party. Politicians know this and act accordingly. Republicans govern from the hard right to avoid a primary challenge that could cost them their seat; Democrats govern from the hard left for the same reason.
There’s also no reason to compromise in a gerrymandered world. In a fair general election, being known for compromise might win you a few votes from moderates in the opposing party, but those votes are irrelevant in today’s world. Elected officials stake out radical positions and refuse to compromise (thus avoiding primary challenges) and then win their general elections in gerrymandered districts. We, the unfortunate public, suffer the result. We live in a world without compromise or sanity.
This is what makes particularly galling Texas Republicans’ recent decision to engage in midcycle redistricting — gerrymandering districts in between the customary once in a decade (corresponding to a decennial census). Republicans want to create more safe Republican seats, increasing the odds that Republicans will maintain control of the House of Representatives in 2026. Democrats are of course threatening to respond in kind, proposing to engage in midcycle redistricting of their own to create more Democratic seats to offset the new Republican ones.
If you want to improve the American political system, let nonpartisan bodies design Congressional districts with a mandate to create as many competitive districts as reasonably possible. More competitive races would punish the loonies of both the right and left and would encourage legislative compromises. That would be a step in the right direction.
(I know that crafting Congressional districts is tricky, and creating competitive districts is hard. That’s fine. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Strive for more competitive districts. Let’s at least head the right way.)
Texas Republicans are running straight in the other direction. Shame on them. Shame on the Democrats, too, although one can at least understand that, if one party is going to gerrymander to keep control of Congress, the other party feels compelled to do its own gerrymandering to avoid ceding ground to its opponent.
Fixing gerrymandering is one thing that we should be able to do, and that would begin to cure American politics. But we seemingly won’t do it.
If you asked me to name one thing that would improve the legislative process a little bit, and shouldn’t be too hard to implement, it would be to ban trading of individual securities by members of Congress.
Certain members of Congress seem to have made a killing by buying or selling securities just before Congress took legislative action that benefited (or harmed) a particular industry. This stinks; it shouldn’t be allowed. All members of Congress should be required to invest only through mutual funds or blind trusts to avoid unfair and unseemly trading based on nonpublic information.
But Congress won’t pass that law.
Why not?
Senator Rick Scott objects to the idea that lawmakers should be required to put their holdings in mutual funds, implying this would diminish rich legislators’ investment returns, which just isn’t fair.
Cry me a river, you sanctimonious jerk.
Who says we need Rick Scott, or anyone vaguely like him, in Congress?
There are plenty of people with fewer investments than Scott who would be glad to serve in Congress even if stock trading by members of Congress were completely banned. Let’s elect one of those people instead of self-righteous assholes like Scott.
In fact, there are probably even a few rich people in this country who are able to think: “I’m going to serve in Congress for a short while. The interest of America matters more than my own personal self-interest, and I’m perfectly happy to sacrifice a portion of my investment returns for the brief time when I’m serving in Congress. America comes first; where do I sign up for a mutual fund or a blind trust?”
But Rick Scott doesn’t think that way.
That thought has apparently never entered his smug little brain.
I don’t know who’ll run against Scott when he’s next up for re-election, but if I were a Floridian, the choice is clear: Vote for the other guy.
Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at [email protected].
