With last fall's midterm elections came a new batch of Republican governors. One, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, has assumed a national spotlight this month as he has literally attacked unions' rights. Most would agree that unions' benefits need to be adjusted in order for states to function during a recession in order to budget for other necessities while still trying to boost job creation. Some on the far left and others on the far right are at times poisoned the debate with a lack of common sense perspective. One side is not willing to budge on anything and the other side wants to strip unions of all of their rights and "privileges" that come along with someone who serves the public. With all that in mind, an opinion article by New York City Michael Bloomberg caught my eye. He is an Independent and with that comes a perspective that often is balanced. In the following article, he outlines the tough decisions and the best balanced way to approach them. Governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and even right here in my home state of New Jersey can learn from what Mayor Bloomberg proposes. It creates a path that all can be open and willing to discuss that solves the problems that face states and the country.
Here is Mayor Bloomberg's article:
IN Ohio, Wisconsin and other states facing budget deficits, some elected officials assert that closing those gaps requires achieving labor savings and weakening labor unions. They are half-right.
Across the country, taxpayers are providing pensions, benefits and job security protections for public workers that almost no one in the private sector enjoys. Taxpayers simply cannot afford to continue paying these costs, which are growing at rates far outpacing inflation. Yes, public sector workers need a secure retirement. And yes, taxpayers need top-quality police officers, teachers and firefighters. It’s the job of government to balance those competing needs. But for a variety of reasons, the scale has been increasingly tipping away from taxpayers.
Correcting this imbalance is not easy, but in a growing number of states, budget deficits are being used to justify efforts to scale back not only labor costs, but labor rights. The impulse is understandable; public sector unions all too often stand in the way of reform. But unions also play a vital role in protecting against abuses in the workplace, and in my experience they are integral to training, deploying and managing a professional work force.
Organizing around a common interest is a fundamental part of democracy. We should no more try to take away the right of individuals to collectively bargain than we should try to take away the right to a secret ballot. Instead, we should work to modernize government’s relationship with unions — and union leaders should be farsighted enough to cooperate, because the only way to protect the long-term integrity of employee benefits is to ensure the public’s long-term ability to fund them. In Wisconsin, efforts to rein in spending on labor contracts have included proposals to strip unions of their right to collectively bargain for pensions and health care benefits.
Yet the problem is not unions expressing those rights; it is governments failing to adapt to the times and act in a fiscally responsible manner. If contract terms or labor laws from years past no longer make sense, we the people should renegotiate — or legislate — changes. Benefits agreed to 35 years ago that now are unaffordable should be reduced. Similarly, work rules that made sense 70 years ago but are now antiquated should be changed.
In New York City, we share the same goal as cities and states across the nation — less spending and better services. We, too, are seeking to legislate changes to reduce pension and benefit costs and modernize our labor laws. But in some cases, we believe expanding collective bargaining would be more beneficial than trying to eliminate it.
For example, in New York, state government — not the city — has the authority to set pension benefits for city workers, but city taxpayers get stuck with the bill. The mayor cannot directly discuss pension benefits as part of contract negotiations with unions, even though pension benefits could be as much as 80 percent of an employee’s overall compensation. In addition, members of the State Legislature pass pension “sweeteners” for municipal unions that help attract support for their re-election campaigns.
These are problems that mayors around the country also face. In New York City, taxpayers will be forced to pay $8.3 billion in pension costs this year, up from $1.5 billion 10 years ago. Our proposal to the state is simple: legislate lower costs this year and, going forward, give us the authority to negotiate fair pension savings ourselves.
Pensions are not the only area where we would like to expand our collective bargaining authority in order to modernize government. New York is one of only a dozen or so states with a law requiring layoffs of teachers based strictly on seniority — a policy that’s known as “last in, first out.” In New York City, we are preparing to lay off workers across city agencies, including 4,500 teachers. And the only thing worse than laying off teachers would be laying off the wrong teachers — some of our very best.
That’s why we are asking the state to give us the legal authority to collectively bargain a layoff policy with the teachers’ union — and in the meantime, to conduct layoffs based on common-sense factors like eliminating teachers who have been rated unsatisfactory, found guilty of criminal charges or failed to meet professional certification requirements.
To the extent that collective bargaining agreements or state laws are no longer serving the public, we should change them. That is what democracy is all about — and that is our responsibility. The job of labor leaders is to get the best deal for their members. The job of elected officials is to get the best deal for all citizens.
Rather than declare war on unions, we should demand a new deal with them — one that reflects today’s economic realities and workplace conditions, not those of a century ago. If we fail to do that, the fault is not in our unions, or in our stars, but in ourselves.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
As the redistricting maps turn; next stop Virginia
Texas, Indiana, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, California, Nevada, and....now Virginia. The first eight have been looked at, analyzed, discussed, and focused on. Republicans can see gains in some while Democrats can see the same in others. While there could be limited movement overall due the sticky circumstances that involve redistricting. Now, Virginia and its map find itself under the spotlight. Virginia was a big win for Democrats in 2008 then a huge loss in 2010. Redistricting in 2012 could impact if the elections end up more like the latter or the former.
What might occur in Virginia in the coming year:
Virginia officially kicked off its redistricting process at the end of January/start of February when the Census made it one of the first states to receive detailed population data.
The Commonwealth and three other states got their data first, since they hold state legislative sessions in 2011 and need to get their maps drawn fast.
But Virginia Republicans may be in no rush -- especially when delaying the process could reap some real benefits.
Control over the redistricting process is currently split in the Commonwealth -- a set of circumstances that often leads to compromise between the two parties. But some Republicans say there may be a way for the GOP to gain full control of the process, and all it requires is a little time and a successful 2011 election.
Virginia's state Senate is still controlled by Democrats and is the one thing standing in the way of total Republican control of redistricting.
With the governorship and the state House firmly under GOP control, Republicans will be gunning for the state Senate in November's election, when they will have a good shot at taking three of the Democrats' 22 seats and grabbing a majority.
The question is whether Republicans try to push off the redistricting process until after the election.
They can definitely wait to draw the congressional map, since no federal elections will be held in 2011. Whether they can wait to draw the state legislative districts is an open question.
The Virginia constitution appears to require the state to draw new state legislative districts in the odd-numbered year, and a state guide to redistricting notes that the law "has been understood to require redistricting in advance of the November 2011 elections for districts electing representatives at that time."
But the guide goes on to note that such a requirement provides a very tight timetable for the state legislature to get things done.
And therein may lie Republicans' opportunity.
With the two chambers controlled by different parties, it's going to be difficult for lawmakers to reach an accord on the new district lines. Virginia is also a Voting Rights Act state, which means its plans must be pre-cleared by the Justice Department. The process, in short, could take a while under any circumstances.
If the legislature can't come up with a plan in 2011, the matter would have to go to court.
Former Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), a veteran of redistricting who oversaw the GOP's national efforts during the 2002 election cycle as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, noted that the courts are generally reticent to infringe on the state legislature's right to draw the map.
What's more, the courts may not even act until the end of the year, since the law doesn't specifically say anything about doing redistricting before the November elections.
"Even if the legislature's late, the courts I think would be reluctant to impose their plan over a legislative plan," Davis said.
Democrats disagree.
"The majority of the precedent you'll see is the courts stepping in when the legislative process starts bumping up against a hard deadline," said one Democrat, speaking anonymously in order to discuss strategy.
So far, reports indicate that Republicans haven't shown much interest in working with the Democrats on redistricting, which could lead to a (convenient) slowdown.
Democrats are dubious about the possibility and say the law requires that state legislative redistricting be done in 2011 -- period.
But even if they do have to redraw their state legislative districts in 2011, there is nothing in the law that says they can't wait to draw congressional districts. Even Democrats acknowledge that Republicans could put that off until 2012 and still be in the clear.
"Theoretically, the legislature could push off congressional redistricting," said another Democrat who works on redistricting. "But it would set a new precedent and would be another Tom DeLay-like situation." (DeLay led a re-redistricting last decade in Texas.)
Gamesmanship aside, it's important to look at the actual implications of such a move. And, the reality is that the timing of the line-drawing might not have that much effect on the partisan breakdown of the congressional delegation.
Right now, Republicans control eight of 11 seats in Virginia, including three districts that went for President Obama in 2008 and three districts that were held by Democrats last cycle. That means Republicans will want to shore up their newest members.
If the map is a compromise between the two parties, it would likely result in lines that make all 11 incumbents safer -- along the lines, ahem, of what happened in California during the 2001 redistricting.
If Republicans control the entire process, they can shore up their eight members and potentially go for a ninth seat.
But given the current state of play, that ninth seat would be pretty hard to get, and could put other Republicans at risk.
Here's what the GOP would be shooting for, district by district (and be sure to follow along on the congressional map here.):
* 2nd district: Republicans could shore up freshman Rep. Scott Rigell (R) in his Virginia Beach-based swing district by adding some of Rep. Rob Wittman's (R) strongly Republican 1st district running up the east coast of the state. Wittman's seat needs to shed about 50,000 people, while Rigell needs to pick up about 60,000, so it's a relatively easy call.
* 5th district: Despite going Democratic for one cycle in 2008, freshman Rep. Robert Hurt's (R) district in south-central Virginia is pretty conservative. He could be made safer, though, if his district takes in some Republican territory from neighboring districts held by Reps. Eric Cantor (R) and Bob Goodlatte (R). There are lots of options here, and lots of conservative territory.
* 9th district: Freshman Rep. Morgan Griffith's (R) district is very conservative, and it's hard to see Democrats winning it back, barring a repeat bid from longtime former Rep. Rick Boucher (D). But the district needs to add lots of population. The easiest and most likely solution is to draw in Salem, which would have the dual benefit of adding Republican-leaning population and putting Griffith's home into the district (he currently lives in the neighboring 6th district).
* 10th district : Rep. Frank Wolf (R) is a survivor -- big time. His northern Virginia district went for Obama by seven points in 2008, but he still won by 20 despite being outspent by his opponent. That said, Wolf just turned 72 years old in January. And if he can't serve 10 more years, Republicans will have to defend the seat at some point. His district has grown a lot and needs to shrink, but since he is from the eastern part of the district (closer to D.C.), it's going to be hard for him to pick up territory in the GOP-leaning Shenandoah Valley to the west. He could grab some more Republican parts of the two other Northern Virginia districts -- the 8th and the 11th -- but that might ruin GOP attempts to reclaim the 11th.
* 11th district: This seat is really the x-factor in the redistricting process. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) narrowly survived 2010, but his district as it stands is pretty safe for a Democrat. If Wolf gets shored up, Connolly could benefit by taking on some of the Democratic territory from Wolf's district. If Republicans control the process and want to get ambitious, though, they could try to add some more Republican parts of Wittman's 1st district to at least keep the 11th competitive. With Wittman already ceding some ground to Rigell, though, it could be a tough balancing act.
Republicans control every other competitive district in the state, so the 11th is the final frontier.
Rep. Bobby Scott's (D) Richmond- and Norfolk-based 3rd district is majority-African American, and Rep. Jim Moran's (D) suburban Washington 8th district is also very Democratic.
The most likely result of a compromise map is that everyone gets safer -- including Connolly -- and the map stays at 8-to-3 with a handful of somewhat competitive districts. If Republicans control the process, though, they could potentially stretch for a 9-to-2 map.
But that's risky, said Mike Whatley, the editor of the Rose Report at Claremont-McKenna College.
"Republicans need to keep in mind that they need to keep 10th district Republican," Whatley said. "They'll struggle with that if they want to make 11th a Republican district."
The practical implications of a GOP power grab might not be great. But if you're a Republican member of Congress, you'd be much happier to have your party drawing all the lines.
The question for the GOP is whether it wants to push the envelope.
What might occur in Virginia in the coming year:
Virginia officially kicked off its redistricting process at the end of January/start of February when the Census made it one of the first states to receive detailed population data.
The Commonwealth and three other states got their data first, since they hold state legislative sessions in 2011 and need to get their maps drawn fast.
But Virginia Republicans may be in no rush -- especially when delaying the process could reap some real benefits.
Control over the redistricting process is currently split in the Commonwealth -- a set of circumstances that often leads to compromise between the two parties. But some Republicans say there may be a way for the GOP to gain full control of the process, and all it requires is a little time and a successful 2011 election.
Virginia's state Senate is still controlled by Democrats and is the one thing standing in the way of total Republican control of redistricting.
With the governorship and the state House firmly under GOP control, Republicans will be gunning for the state Senate in November's election, when they will have a good shot at taking three of the Democrats' 22 seats and grabbing a majority.
The question is whether Republicans try to push off the redistricting process until after the election.
They can definitely wait to draw the congressional map, since no federal elections will be held in 2011. Whether they can wait to draw the state legislative districts is an open question.
The Virginia constitution appears to require the state to draw new state legislative districts in the odd-numbered year, and a state guide to redistricting notes that the law "has been understood to require redistricting in advance of the November 2011 elections for districts electing representatives at that time."
But the guide goes on to note that such a requirement provides a very tight timetable for the state legislature to get things done.
And therein may lie Republicans' opportunity.
With the two chambers controlled by different parties, it's going to be difficult for lawmakers to reach an accord on the new district lines. Virginia is also a Voting Rights Act state, which means its plans must be pre-cleared by the Justice Department. The process, in short, could take a while under any circumstances.
If the legislature can't come up with a plan in 2011, the matter would have to go to court.
Former Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), a veteran of redistricting who oversaw the GOP's national efforts during the 2002 election cycle as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, noted that the courts are generally reticent to infringe on the state legislature's right to draw the map.
What's more, the courts may not even act until the end of the year, since the law doesn't specifically say anything about doing redistricting before the November elections.
"Even if the legislature's late, the courts I think would be reluctant to impose their plan over a legislative plan," Davis said.
Democrats disagree.
"The majority of the precedent you'll see is the courts stepping in when the legislative process starts bumping up against a hard deadline," said one Democrat, speaking anonymously in order to discuss strategy.
So far, reports indicate that Republicans haven't shown much interest in working with the Democrats on redistricting, which could lead to a (convenient) slowdown.
Democrats are dubious about the possibility and say the law requires that state legislative redistricting be done in 2011 -- period.
But even if they do have to redraw their state legislative districts in 2011, there is nothing in the law that says they can't wait to draw congressional districts. Even Democrats acknowledge that Republicans could put that off until 2012 and still be in the clear.
"Theoretically, the legislature could push off congressional redistricting," said another Democrat who works on redistricting. "But it would set a new precedent and would be another Tom DeLay-like situation." (DeLay led a re-redistricting last decade in Texas.)
Gamesmanship aside, it's important to look at the actual implications of such a move. And, the reality is that the timing of the line-drawing might not have that much effect on the partisan breakdown of the congressional delegation.
Right now, Republicans control eight of 11 seats in Virginia, including three districts that went for President Obama in 2008 and three districts that were held by Democrats last cycle. That means Republicans will want to shore up their newest members.
If the map is a compromise between the two parties, it would likely result in lines that make all 11 incumbents safer -- along the lines, ahem, of what happened in California during the 2001 redistricting.
If Republicans control the entire process, they can shore up their eight members and potentially go for a ninth seat.
But given the current state of play, that ninth seat would be pretty hard to get, and could put other Republicans at risk.
Here's what the GOP would be shooting for, district by district (and be sure to follow along on the congressional map here.):
* 2nd district: Republicans could shore up freshman Rep. Scott Rigell (R) in his Virginia Beach-based swing district by adding some of Rep. Rob Wittman's (R) strongly Republican 1st district running up the east coast of the state. Wittman's seat needs to shed about 50,000 people, while Rigell needs to pick up about 60,000, so it's a relatively easy call.
* 5th district: Despite going Democratic for one cycle in 2008, freshman Rep. Robert Hurt's (R) district in south-central Virginia is pretty conservative. He could be made safer, though, if his district takes in some Republican territory from neighboring districts held by Reps. Eric Cantor (R) and Bob Goodlatte (R). There are lots of options here, and lots of conservative territory.
* 9th district: Freshman Rep. Morgan Griffith's (R) district is very conservative, and it's hard to see Democrats winning it back, barring a repeat bid from longtime former Rep. Rick Boucher (D). But the district needs to add lots of population. The easiest and most likely solution is to draw in Salem, which would have the dual benefit of adding Republican-leaning population and putting Griffith's home into the district (he currently lives in the neighboring 6th district).
* 10th district : Rep. Frank Wolf (R) is a survivor -- big time. His northern Virginia district went for Obama by seven points in 2008, but he still won by 20 despite being outspent by his opponent. That said, Wolf just turned 72 years old in January. And if he can't serve 10 more years, Republicans will have to defend the seat at some point. His district has grown a lot and needs to shrink, but since he is from the eastern part of the district (closer to D.C.), it's going to be hard for him to pick up territory in the GOP-leaning Shenandoah Valley to the west. He could grab some more Republican parts of the two other Northern Virginia districts -- the 8th and the 11th -- but that might ruin GOP attempts to reclaim the 11th.
* 11th district: This seat is really the x-factor in the redistricting process. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) narrowly survived 2010, but his district as it stands is pretty safe for a Democrat. If Wolf gets shored up, Connolly could benefit by taking on some of the Democratic territory from Wolf's district. If Republicans control the process and want to get ambitious, though, they could try to add some more Republican parts of Wittman's 1st district to at least keep the 11th competitive. With Wittman already ceding some ground to Rigell, though, it could be a tough balancing act.
Republicans control every other competitive district in the state, so the 11th is the final frontier.
Rep. Bobby Scott's (D) Richmond- and Norfolk-based 3rd district is majority-African American, and Rep. Jim Moran's (D) suburban Washington 8th district is also very Democratic.
The most likely result of a compromise map is that everyone gets safer -- including Connolly -- and the map stays at 8-to-3 with a handful of somewhat competitive districts. If Republicans control the process, though, they could potentially stretch for a 9-to-2 map.
But that's risky, said Mike Whatley, the editor of the Rose Report at Claremont-McKenna College.
"Republicans need to keep in mind that they need to keep 10th district Republican," Whatley said. "They'll struggle with that if they want to make 11th a Republican district."
The practical implications of a GOP power grab might not be great. But if you're a Republican member of Congress, you'd be much happier to have your party drawing all the lines.
The question for the GOP is whether it wants to push the envelope.
Monday, February 14, 2011
As the redistricting maps turn; next stop Nevada
The redistricting talks thus far has taken us to Texas, Indiana, http://audacityofcovin.blogspot.com/2011/01/as-redistricting-maps-turn-next-stop_20.html, Illinois, http://audacityofcovin.blogspot.com/2011/01/as-redistricting-maps-turn-next-stop_31.html, Ohio, and California. For the next stop, we cross the border into Nevada; a state that recently has become a major player in elections.
Turning to Nevada:
Explosive growth in the Las Vegas area means Nevada will gain a congressional seat in 2012. And that's likely to benefit Democrats.
A Democratic-controlled legislature and a Republican governor mean the redistricting process will be split. But whether state legislators work out a deal or the courts wind up drawing the map, Democrats should have a good opportunity to at least even the score in the state, where Republicans currently hold two of three congressional districts.
Nevada, the fastest-growing state in the country, is a Democratic-trending swing state at the presidential level, having gone for President Bush in 2004 and President Obama in 2008.
And, since neither side has full control of the drawing of the map, the logical solution would be to split the map -- either create two Republican districts and two Democratic districts, or draw one safe district for each party and two competitive districts.
"Republicans and Democrats both believe that they can draw three-to-one maps, and the truth is either one could," said Republican consultant Ryan Erwin, "But neither of them could get it through the legislature and get the governor to sign it."
Democrats could try to get an edge, though The party might cite its registration advantage in the state -- it has about 70,000 more active voters than Republicans thanks in large part to the ultra-competitive 2008 Democratic presidential primary -- to push for only one safe Republican district.
"It's not a stretch to see how you could create a map with two strong lean-Democratic districts, one Republican district and one competitive district," said Tom Bonier, chief operating officer at the National Committee for an Effective Congress, which advises Democrats on redistricting. "The question is whether Democrats will propose it and whether the governor would stomach it." (Gov. Brian Sandoval is a Republican, and the Democrats cannot override a veto.)
The large growth in Las Vegas-based Clark County means that the new district will be based there. The county now contains nearly three-fourths of the state's population, so at least three districts will have to take in large parts of the county's population (while the fourth district will likely be headquartered in the state's other population center -- Reno-based Washoe County).
Right now, most of Clark County's population is contained in two districts -- the heavily Democratic 1st district held by Rep. Shelley Berkley in Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, and the suburban 3rd district that is now held by freshman Republican Rep. Joe Heck, which is Democratic-leaning seat. The 2nd district, which is Republican-tilting, includes every other county in the state (along with a few voters in Clark County) and belongs to Republican Rep. Dean Heller.
The major changes that will be made are the creation of a new district and the shrinking of Heck's and Berkley's districts.
Heck's district is the biggest population-wise in the country, thanks to rapid growth, and has been estimated as the first congressional district to reach one million residents. Berkley's has also grown fast, and their two districts can essentially be morphed into three, if that's what the map-drawers want to do.
If you take the more Democratic parts of Heck's district and add parts of Berkley's district, it's easy to make two Democratic districts and one Republican district in Clark County. One of those districts (potentially Heck's) may have to take in some rural counties north of Clark County, but the areas between there and the Reno area are so sparsely populated that things wouldn't change that much.
If Democrats push for two Democratic seats and one competitive seat in Clark County, the new seat wouldn't take quite so many Democrats from Heck, leaving his district marginal but also leaving the new Democratic district less safe.
Nevada Democratic consultant Kami Dempsey, who works on redistricting matters, suggested Democrats could earn redistricting concessions from Sandoval (R) during the looming budget debate.
"We have about a $3 billion shortfall that we have to fill," Dempsey. "Who knows what deals will be struck through that process?"
Heller, meanwhile, could get safer by dropping the little territory he has in Clark County, which is slightly Republican but not as much as other parts of his district. Or he could give away more of northern Nevada to another district and take in some more GOP parts of Clark County.
Heller is popular and pretty safe, but his district almost went for President Obama in 2008, and Republicans may want to shore him up just to make sure they don't lose the district if Heller were ever to leave or run for higher office.
Which brings us to a major x-factor: Heller and Berkley are both looking at a run for the Sen. John Ensign's (R-Nev.) seat in 2012.
If either or both make the statewide leap and do it soon (i.e. before redistricting is done), they may not be as concerned about keeping their districts intact. And Berkley's district, in particular, could undergo wholesale changes if she vacates it.
The subplot in all of this is a coterie of ambitious Clark County Democrats who will be looking to run for Congress in 2012 -- a list that includes, but isn't limited to, state House Speaker John Oceguera, state Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, former Rep. Dina Titus, and 2010 Democratic governor nominee Rory Reid.
Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), is already being floated for the seat. And Titus, who lost her seat to Heck in November, has said she's looking to run in the new district too.
"It will be a Democratic seat, a southern seat and will include part of what I represented, so I will definitely be looking at it," Titus told the Las Vegas Sun.
The question is whether Titus and Reid have one district to run in, or whether they have two or even three.
All of them will want the new district drawn for them, and its location could have a major impact on who wins the seat. They are all from different parts of the county, and by drawing those areas in or out of a new district, the map-makers could give one of those candidates a leg up on competitors in a Democratic primary.
But even if they don't get drawn in to the new district, there's still hope. If Heck's district remains competitive and/or Berkley retires, there would still be opportunities to run.
Another major question in Clark County is whether the map-makers try to create a majority-Hispanic district -- a growing possibility given the increasing size of that community. And if they do create such a district, it could benefit a Hispanic candidate.
Regardless of whether Heller runs for Senate, his district is still likely to be based in Washoe County. So we're going to see a similar cast of characters to the one we saw in 2006 when Heller first ran for the seat, beating 2010 GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle by less than 500 votes in the primary.
Keep in mind through all of this: Nevada is the first state that has been looked at in this series where control of the redistricting process is split between parties. That makes for a difficult negotiating process, and any failure to agree could pretty easily lead to the courts drawing the map.
The congressional delegation gets along well, and it's a common practice for the delegation to reach a compromise that the state legislature rubber stamps. But adding a fourth seat to the map complicates things, and certain state legislators will be personally interested in how the congressional map turns out.
"Most folks think it is quite likely, because of makeup in capital, that this will be decided by the judicial branch," said Nevada political guru Jon Ralston.
Even then, though, much of the above still applies. There will be three districts in Clark County, and the county has many more registered Democrats than Republicans. The GOP may not be able to count on getting a Republican-leaning Clark County district from the court, so it may be willing to make a deal with Democrats.
Whatever the outcome, the Democrats' days as a minority in the congressional delegation could be numbered.
Turning to Nevada:
Explosive growth in the Las Vegas area means Nevada will gain a congressional seat in 2012. And that's likely to benefit Democrats.
A Democratic-controlled legislature and a Republican governor mean the redistricting process will be split. But whether state legislators work out a deal or the courts wind up drawing the map, Democrats should have a good opportunity to at least even the score in the state, where Republicans currently hold two of three congressional districts.
Nevada, the fastest-growing state in the country, is a Democratic-trending swing state at the presidential level, having gone for President Bush in 2004 and President Obama in 2008.
And, since neither side has full control of the drawing of the map, the logical solution would be to split the map -- either create two Republican districts and two Democratic districts, or draw one safe district for each party and two competitive districts.
"Republicans and Democrats both believe that they can draw three-to-one maps, and the truth is either one could," said Republican consultant Ryan Erwin, "But neither of them could get it through the legislature and get the governor to sign it."
Democrats could try to get an edge, though The party might cite its registration advantage in the state -- it has about 70,000 more active voters than Republicans thanks in large part to the ultra-competitive 2008 Democratic presidential primary -- to push for only one safe Republican district.
"It's not a stretch to see how you could create a map with two strong lean-Democratic districts, one Republican district and one competitive district," said Tom Bonier, chief operating officer at the National Committee for an Effective Congress, which advises Democrats on redistricting. "The question is whether Democrats will propose it and whether the governor would stomach it." (Gov. Brian Sandoval is a Republican, and the Democrats cannot override a veto.)
The large growth in Las Vegas-based Clark County means that the new district will be based there. The county now contains nearly three-fourths of the state's population, so at least three districts will have to take in large parts of the county's population (while the fourth district will likely be headquartered in the state's other population center -- Reno-based Washoe County).
Right now, most of Clark County's population is contained in two districts -- the heavily Democratic 1st district held by Rep. Shelley Berkley in Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, and the suburban 3rd district that is now held by freshman Republican Rep. Joe Heck, which is Democratic-leaning seat. The 2nd district, which is Republican-tilting, includes every other county in the state (along with a few voters in Clark County) and belongs to Republican Rep. Dean Heller.
The major changes that will be made are the creation of a new district and the shrinking of Heck's and Berkley's districts.
Heck's district is the biggest population-wise in the country, thanks to rapid growth, and has been estimated as the first congressional district to reach one million residents. Berkley's has also grown fast, and their two districts can essentially be morphed into three, if that's what the map-drawers want to do.
If you take the more Democratic parts of Heck's district and add parts of Berkley's district, it's easy to make two Democratic districts and one Republican district in Clark County. One of those districts (potentially Heck's) may have to take in some rural counties north of Clark County, but the areas between there and the Reno area are so sparsely populated that things wouldn't change that much.
If Democrats push for two Democratic seats and one competitive seat in Clark County, the new seat wouldn't take quite so many Democrats from Heck, leaving his district marginal but also leaving the new Democratic district less safe.
Nevada Democratic consultant Kami Dempsey, who works on redistricting matters, suggested Democrats could earn redistricting concessions from Sandoval (R) during the looming budget debate.
"We have about a $3 billion shortfall that we have to fill," Dempsey. "Who knows what deals will be struck through that process?"
Heller, meanwhile, could get safer by dropping the little territory he has in Clark County, which is slightly Republican but not as much as other parts of his district. Or he could give away more of northern Nevada to another district and take in some more GOP parts of Clark County.
Heller is popular and pretty safe, but his district almost went for President Obama in 2008, and Republicans may want to shore him up just to make sure they don't lose the district if Heller were ever to leave or run for higher office.
Which brings us to a major x-factor: Heller and Berkley are both looking at a run for the Sen. John Ensign's (R-Nev.) seat in 2012.
If either or both make the statewide leap and do it soon (i.e. before redistricting is done), they may not be as concerned about keeping their districts intact. And Berkley's district, in particular, could undergo wholesale changes if she vacates it.
The subplot in all of this is a coterie of ambitious Clark County Democrats who will be looking to run for Congress in 2012 -- a list that includes, but isn't limited to, state House Speaker John Oceguera, state Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, former Rep. Dina Titus, and 2010 Democratic governor nominee Rory Reid.
Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), is already being floated for the seat. And Titus, who lost her seat to Heck in November, has said she's looking to run in the new district too.
"It will be a Democratic seat, a southern seat and will include part of what I represented, so I will definitely be looking at it," Titus told the Las Vegas Sun.
The question is whether Titus and Reid have one district to run in, or whether they have two or even three.
All of them will want the new district drawn for them, and its location could have a major impact on who wins the seat. They are all from different parts of the county, and by drawing those areas in or out of a new district, the map-makers could give one of those candidates a leg up on competitors in a Democratic primary.
But even if they don't get drawn in to the new district, there's still hope. If Heck's district remains competitive and/or Berkley retires, there would still be opportunities to run.
Another major question in Clark County is whether the map-makers try to create a majority-Hispanic district -- a growing possibility given the increasing size of that community. And if they do create such a district, it could benefit a Hispanic candidate.
Regardless of whether Heller runs for Senate, his district is still likely to be based in Washoe County. So we're going to see a similar cast of characters to the one we saw in 2006 when Heller first ran for the seat, beating 2010 GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle by less than 500 votes in the primary.
Keep in mind through all of this: Nevada is the first state that has been looked at in this series where control of the redistricting process is split between parties. That makes for a difficult negotiating process, and any failure to agree could pretty easily lead to the courts drawing the map.
The congressional delegation gets along well, and it's a common practice for the delegation to reach a compromise that the state legislature rubber stamps. But adding a fourth seat to the map complicates things, and certain state legislators will be personally interested in how the congressional map turns out.
"Most folks think it is quite likely, because of makeup in capital, that this will be decided by the judicial branch," said Nevada political guru Jon Ralston.
Even then, though, much of the above still applies. There will be three districts in Clark County, and the county has many more registered Democrats than Republicans. The GOP may not be able to count on getting a Republican-leaning Clark County district from the court, so it may be willing to make a deal with Democrats.
Whatever the outcome, the Democrats' days as a minority in the congressional delegation could be numbered.
Closing the wealth gap could aid the economy
There has been much conversation from both sides of the political aisle on how to get the country out of its current recession. The biggest focal points are lowering unemployment and creating jobs. Most of the time there is empty rhetoric if there is any focus on it by elected officials. One of the factors that affect the economy and how individuals feel during it is tax rates. Over time, the benefits of them have aided the upper 2% much more than the rest of the 98%.
That split was seen last year when Republicans refused to only help 98% of the country in order to protect the top 2%. Ultimately, 100% of the country had their current tax rates extended. However, the Washington Post's Harold Meyerson put the effect of taxes on the poor, middle class, and wealthy into perspective and how a more serious approach to closing the wealth gap might aid the economy's consistent struggles.
As Meyerson writes:
What ails the economy, various wise men tell us, is that we're not innovating like we used to. Personal computers and the Internet may look like a big deal, but their impact on our lives - and incomes - pales alongside the effect that electric power, the automobile and the airplane had on our 20th-century forebears. Much as onetime California Angels manager Lefty Phillips said of some overhyped rookies, "Our phenoms ain't phenominating."
As The Post's Steve Pearlstein discussed in his Wednesday column, there's a growing body of work - most prominently, that of George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen, who has just published an e-book, "The Great Stagnation" - that argues that the stagnating incomes that most Americans have experienced over the past three decades have been caused by this decline in innovation.
Cowen's is an elegant theory and by no means entirely wrong. It fails to explain, however, why other nations with advanced economies, such as Germany and France, haven't experienced the same economic transformations the United States has - in particular, the upward redistribution of the nation's wealth to the very rich as everyone else's income flat-lined. That didn't happen in the other advanced economies, even though those nations' record of innovation isn't any better (and by many measures is worse) than ours.
But Cowen contends that the innovation gap is the real culprit. Since the early 1970s, he argued in last Sunday's Economic View column in the New York Times, "we are coming up with ideas that benefit relatively small numbers of people" economically. From 1947 to 1973, he wrote, "inflation-adjusted median income in the United States more than doubled." Since then, it has risen just 22 percent (and that small increase is largely the result of more members of the household entering the workforce).
The stagnation of median income, in Cowen's view, is the consequence of the absence of innovations on the scale of Henry Ford's assembly-line cars. "No one in particular is to blame," he wrote. "Until science has a greater impact again on average daily living standards, the political problem will be in learning to live within our means."
But is the absence of world-changing innovation really behind the economic stagnation that all but the wealthiest tenth of Americans have endured for the past 35 years? After all, during that time our gross domestic product expanded and our productivity rose. The difference between America pre- and post-1973 is that in the years preceding, the benefits from economic growth were widely shared, while in the years following, they increasingly went only to the top.
From 1947 through 1973, according to the Economic Policy Institute's State of Working America report, released this week, the incomes of the poorest 20 percent of Americans rose 117 percent, while the middle 20 percent saw a rise of 104 percent and the wealthiest 20 percent a rise of 89 percent. From 1973 through 2000, however, the income of the bottom fifth increased by a scant 9 percent, the middle fifth by 23 percent and the richest fifth by 62 percent. Since 2000, the concentration of income gains at the very top has grown only more pronounced. The share of income going to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, which was less than 10 percent in the early '70s, reached 23.5 percent in 2007 - the highest level on record save for 1928. (Note: Both years preceded epic crashes.)
Lagging innovation may explain many things, but it doesn't explain the rise of the rich over everybody else. For that, we need to look at changing power relationships, something that most mainstream economists resolutely ignore. Surely, the shrinking of unions - from 35 percent of the private-sector workforce in the 1950s to less than 7 percent today - has decreased American workers' ability to win good wages. Surely, the offshoring of manufacturing has diminished both the number of good jobs and our ability to exploit our innovations productively. Surely, the deregulation of finance has diverted more and more resources to a relatively small circle of bankers and speculators. And that tiny cadre has chiefly enriched itself at the expense of the rest of the nation.
The great majority of Americans haven't been struggling just because our phenoms haven't been phenominating. They've also lost power to our corporate and financial elites. Until they can win it back, all the innovations in the world won't bring them their rightful share of the wealth they create.
That split was seen last year when Republicans refused to only help 98% of the country in order to protect the top 2%. Ultimately, 100% of the country had their current tax rates extended. However, the Washington Post's Harold Meyerson put the effect of taxes on the poor, middle class, and wealthy into perspective and how a more serious approach to closing the wealth gap might aid the economy's consistent struggles.
As Meyerson writes:
What ails the economy, various wise men tell us, is that we're not innovating like we used to. Personal computers and the Internet may look like a big deal, but their impact on our lives - and incomes - pales alongside the effect that electric power, the automobile and the airplane had on our 20th-century forebears. Much as onetime California Angels manager Lefty Phillips said of some overhyped rookies, "Our phenoms ain't phenominating."
As The Post's Steve Pearlstein discussed in his Wednesday column, there's a growing body of work - most prominently, that of George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen, who has just published an e-book, "The Great Stagnation" - that argues that the stagnating incomes that most Americans have experienced over the past three decades have been caused by this decline in innovation.
Cowen's is an elegant theory and by no means entirely wrong. It fails to explain, however, why other nations with advanced economies, such as Germany and France, haven't experienced the same economic transformations the United States has - in particular, the upward redistribution of the nation's wealth to the very rich as everyone else's income flat-lined. That didn't happen in the other advanced economies, even though those nations' record of innovation isn't any better (and by many measures is worse) than ours.
But Cowen contends that the innovation gap is the real culprit. Since the early 1970s, he argued in last Sunday's Economic View column in the New York Times, "we are coming up with ideas that benefit relatively small numbers of people" economically. From 1947 to 1973, he wrote, "inflation-adjusted median income in the United States more than doubled." Since then, it has risen just 22 percent (and that small increase is largely the result of more members of the household entering the workforce).
The stagnation of median income, in Cowen's view, is the consequence of the absence of innovations on the scale of Henry Ford's assembly-line cars. "No one in particular is to blame," he wrote. "Until science has a greater impact again on average daily living standards, the political problem will be in learning to live within our means."
But is the absence of world-changing innovation really behind the economic stagnation that all but the wealthiest tenth of Americans have endured for the past 35 years? After all, during that time our gross domestic product expanded and our productivity rose. The difference between America pre- and post-1973 is that in the years preceding, the benefits from economic growth were widely shared, while in the years following, they increasingly went only to the top.
From 1947 through 1973, according to the Economic Policy Institute's State of Working America report, released this week, the incomes of the poorest 20 percent of Americans rose 117 percent, while the middle 20 percent saw a rise of 104 percent and the wealthiest 20 percent a rise of 89 percent. From 1973 through 2000, however, the income of the bottom fifth increased by a scant 9 percent, the middle fifth by 23 percent and the richest fifth by 62 percent. Since 2000, the concentration of income gains at the very top has grown only more pronounced. The share of income going to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, which was less than 10 percent in the early '70s, reached 23.5 percent in 2007 - the highest level on record save for 1928. (Note: Both years preceded epic crashes.)
Lagging innovation may explain many things, but it doesn't explain the rise of the rich over everybody else. For that, we need to look at changing power relationships, something that most mainstream economists resolutely ignore. Surely, the shrinking of unions - from 35 percent of the private-sector workforce in the 1950s to less than 7 percent today - has decreased American workers' ability to win good wages. Surely, the offshoring of manufacturing has diminished both the number of good jobs and our ability to exploit our innovations productively. Surely, the deregulation of finance has diverted more and more resources to a relatively small circle of bankers and speculators. And that tiny cadre has chiefly enriched itself at the expense of the rest of the nation.
The great majority of Americans haven't been struggling just because our phenoms haven't been phenominating. They've also lost power to our corporate and financial elites. Until they can win it back, all the innovations in the world won't bring them their rightful share of the wealth they create.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
150 years since Lincoln said his final goodbyes to Springfield
To commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War that divided the northern states and southern states, the New York Times has been doing a series of articles. The most recent one focused in on President-elect Abraham Lincoln's final farewell speech and remarks to the city that shaped the better part of his adult years; Springfield. He might have had an inclination due to the times and circumstances he was about to deal with, but he hoped that one day in the near future he would return to Springfield and live out his older years. However, as historians and anyone who has taken a history class knows, his return was not a happy one as it was in casket after his assassination.
Thus, I direct you to the New York Times piece and take a step back 150 years to the early part of 1861 as one of Illinois' favorite sons was about to embark on a journey to the nation's capital to try to keep a fractured nation together.
As Ted Widmer presents:
The Lincolns had known since November that they would be leaving Springfield, but that only heightened the drama of the scene that unfolded on the overcast morning of their departure. The sculptor Thomas Jones remembered, “It was a dark, gloomy, misty morning, boding rain.” After packing his luggage, Lincoln fixed a simple tag to it: “A. Lincoln White House Washington, D.C.” Then the president-elect headed to the depot of the Great Western Railroad, where he was to board the Presidential Special. Despite the grandeur of the name, the Special was only two cars long, a passenger coach and a baggage car, both painted yellow. The locomotive was named after L. M. Wiley – rather unfortunately, it turned out, since Wiley was a slaveowner from Charleston.
Lincoln turned to his friends and fellow citizens who greeted him at the depot. Before him, his secretary John Hay recorded, Lincoln could see “over a thousand persons of all classes.” He shook as many hands as he could, visibly moved (“his face was pale, and quivered with emotion so deep as to render him almost unable to utter a single word”). At 8 a.m. precisely, he was taken to the cars, where he turned to the crowd, removed his hat and asked for silence.
What followed was one of the great speeches in the Lincoln canon, a tender farewell apparently delivered extemporaneously, though Lincoln had obviously given a great deal of thought to it. He thanked his friends and neighbors for their support, remembered his profound connection to Springfield, reflected on the daunting challenge before him and asked for their prayers.
But the speech was so much more than that. Already, he was showing the odd cadences that separate his speeches from nearly all others: the poetic repetition of the same word (“here”) to start sentences, the perfect comma-pauses, the balance between opposites like “with” and “without.” As if the words were not impressive enough, he wept while delivering it, as did his audience. They cheered loud and long when it was over – a haunting final line ends the article pasted into Hay’s book (“As he turned to enter the car three cheers were given, and a few seconds afterwards the train moved slowly out of the sight of the silent gathering”). He never saw Springfield again.
Once aboard Henry Villard, the reporter whose dispatches were going out through the Associated Press, approached Lincoln and asked him to write out what he had just said. The result is a fascinating document, now in the Library of Congress, that shows Lincoln at work in a more unpolished way than usual. His normally steady hand wobbles – not from the emotion he has just displayed, but from the movement of the train. He grew frustrated and handed the paper to his secretary, John Nicolay, who finished it.
Villard telegraphed its contents around the country, creating an instant Lincoln classic just as the trip was getting underway. Lincoln sat by himself, “alone and depressed,” according to Villard, but for the others it appears to have been “a pleasant ride,” as Nicolay put it. The passengers, a mix of politicians, journalists and advisers, chattered happily. The mood lightened further as Lincoln’s former law partner, Ward Hill Lamon, pulled out his banjo and, according to Villard, “amused us with negro songs.”
The train had to stop frequently to refuel, invariably before large crowds that had assembled in expectation, and Lincoln was pulled out of his despondency by the need to speak to them. Villard called it “the Journey Through Ovations,” and from the moment Lincoln started speaking, he found a powerful wellspring of support from the people along the route. The first stop, Decatur, was a place of meaning: Lincoln had stayed overnight here when his family was moving west from Indiana, and it was where he had been nicknamed the Railsplitter by the Illinois state Republican convention. Here “a great crowd” assembled, according to Villard. In Tolono, pop. 277, a thousand came out.
But even in Illinois, in the last few minutes that he would ever be in his home state, he was not free from danger. According to the railroad historian Scott Trostel, the first of three assassination attempts along the journey to Washington took place about a mile west of the Indiana state line. Just before Lincoln’s train came through, an engineer going along the same route found “that a machine for cars had been fastened upon the rails in such a manner that if a train run at full speed had struck it, the engine and cars must have been thrown off and many persons killed.”
Every few miles saw another twist: at State Line, Ind., all of the passengers disembarked, ate “indifferent food at double the regular price,” and boarded a new railroad line, the Toledo and Wabash. In Lafayette, Lincoln marveled that he had already come farther than it would have taken him all day to walk as a young man. In Thorntown, a comedian’s nightmare: Lincoln starting telling one of his famous tall tales – and the train began to pull away before he got to the punch line. Lincoln could only laugh and wave from the rear platform as his audience fell away behind him. When he got to the next town, Lebanon, he saw people running up, and was told that they must be the people waiting to hear the end of his story.
The Special arrived in Indianapolis at 5 p.m., where it was saluted by 34 guns – one for every state in the Union, including those that had seceded. This was no trackside village – Indianapolis had 18,611 people, and John Nicolay estimated the crowd at 50,000, roughly three times the population. There were flags and bunting everywhere. Lincoln was called upon to speak several times: in response to a greeting from the governor; from the balcony of his hotel, the Bates House; and again to people who had not heard his earlier remarks. In his longest speech of the night, he promised to avoid “coercion” and “invasion” of the South, but insisted on the right of the government to do its business – including holding forts, collecting duties and regulating the mail. A slightly off-color joke about the difference between marriage and free love lightened the mood, plenty festive to begin with.
In the midst of this triumph came a near-disaster. For weeks, Lincoln had been composing the most important public document he had ever undertaken, his inaugural address. He had privately printed a small number of drafts, and these were jealously guarded, for fear that their contents would leak to the voracious press. On the first day of his journey, he had entrusted his copy to his son Robert, and on the evening of the 11th he turned to Robert for the speech. Nicolay evocatively captured what ensued when young Lincoln told his father that the carpetbag holding the speech had been placed in the ordinary safekeeping of the hotel, where anyone unscrupulous might find it:
A look of stupefaction passed over the countenance of Mr. Lincoln, and visions of that Inaugural in all the next morning’s newspapers floated through his imagination. Without a word he opened the door of his room, forced his way through the crowded corridor down to the office, where, with a single stride of his long legs, he swung himself across the clerk’s counter, behind which a small mountain of carpetbags of all colors had accumulated. Then drawing a little key out of his pocket he began delving for the black ones, and opened one by one those that the key would unlock, to the great surprise and amusement of the clerk and bystanders, as their miscellaneous contents came to light. Fortune favored the President-elect, for after the first half dozen trials, he found his treasures.
Evening did nothing to diminish the crowds and their hunger for contact with the man John Hay called “the great elect himself.” He recorded that “the halls, passages, and rooms have all been congested with turbulent congregations of men, all of whom had too many elbows, too much curiosity, and a perfect gushing desire to shake hands with somebody – the President, if possible, if not, with somebody who had shaken hands with him.”
Lincoln’s other secretary, Nicolay, conjured a similar scene of madness: “The House is perfectly jammed with people. Three or four ladies and as many gentlemen have even invaded the room assigned to Mr. Lincoln, while outside the door I hear the crowd pushing and grumbling and shouting in almost frantic endeavours to get to another parlor in the door of which Mr. Lincoln stands shaking hands with the multitude. It is a severe ordeal for us, and increased about tenfold for him.”
At last, around midnight, the ordeal ended, and Lincoln, Hay and Nicolay retired to bed. They had come a great distance in one day. The White House was 200 miles closer.
Thus, I direct you to the New York Times piece and take a step back 150 years to the early part of 1861 as one of Illinois' favorite sons was about to embark on a journey to the nation's capital to try to keep a fractured nation together.
As Ted Widmer presents:
The Lincolns had known since November that they would be leaving Springfield, but that only heightened the drama of the scene that unfolded on the overcast morning of their departure. The sculptor Thomas Jones remembered, “It was a dark, gloomy, misty morning, boding rain.” After packing his luggage, Lincoln fixed a simple tag to it: “A. Lincoln White House Washington, D.C.” Then the president-elect headed to the depot of the Great Western Railroad, where he was to board the Presidential Special. Despite the grandeur of the name, the Special was only two cars long, a passenger coach and a baggage car, both painted yellow. The locomotive was named after L. M. Wiley – rather unfortunately, it turned out, since Wiley was a slaveowner from Charleston.
Lincoln turned to his friends and fellow citizens who greeted him at the depot. Before him, his secretary John Hay recorded, Lincoln could see “over a thousand persons of all classes.” He shook as many hands as he could, visibly moved (“his face was pale, and quivered with emotion so deep as to render him almost unable to utter a single word”). At 8 a.m. precisely, he was taken to the cars, where he turned to the crowd, removed his hat and asked for silence.
What followed was one of the great speeches in the Lincoln canon, a tender farewell apparently delivered extemporaneously, though Lincoln had obviously given a great deal of thought to it. He thanked his friends and neighbors for their support, remembered his profound connection to Springfield, reflected on the daunting challenge before him and asked for their prayers.
But the speech was so much more than that. Already, he was showing the odd cadences that separate his speeches from nearly all others: the poetic repetition of the same word (“here”) to start sentences, the perfect comma-pauses, the balance between opposites like “with” and “without.” As if the words were not impressive enough, he wept while delivering it, as did his audience. They cheered loud and long when it was over – a haunting final line ends the article pasted into Hay’s book (“As he turned to enter the car three cheers were given, and a few seconds afterwards the train moved slowly out of the sight of the silent gathering”). He never saw Springfield again.
Once aboard Henry Villard, the reporter whose dispatches were going out through the Associated Press, approached Lincoln and asked him to write out what he had just said. The result is a fascinating document, now in the Library of Congress, that shows Lincoln at work in a more unpolished way than usual. His normally steady hand wobbles – not from the emotion he has just displayed, but from the movement of the train. He grew frustrated and handed the paper to his secretary, John Nicolay, who finished it.
Villard telegraphed its contents around the country, creating an instant Lincoln classic just as the trip was getting underway. Lincoln sat by himself, “alone and depressed,” according to Villard, but for the others it appears to have been “a pleasant ride,” as Nicolay put it. The passengers, a mix of politicians, journalists and advisers, chattered happily. The mood lightened further as Lincoln’s former law partner, Ward Hill Lamon, pulled out his banjo and, according to Villard, “amused us with negro songs.”
The train had to stop frequently to refuel, invariably before large crowds that had assembled in expectation, and Lincoln was pulled out of his despondency by the need to speak to them. Villard called it “the Journey Through Ovations,” and from the moment Lincoln started speaking, he found a powerful wellspring of support from the people along the route. The first stop, Decatur, was a place of meaning: Lincoln had stayed overnight here when his family was moving west from Indiana, and it was where he had been nicknamed the Railsplitter by the Illinois state Republican convention. Here “a great crowd” assembled, according to Villard. In Tolono, pop. 277, a thousand came out.
But even in Illinois, in the last few minutes that he would ever be in his home state, he was not free from danger. According to the railroad historian Scott Trostel, the first of three assassination attempts along the journey to Washington took place about a mile west of the Indiana state line. Just before Lincoln’s train came through, an engineer going along the same route found “that a machine for cars had been fastened upon the rails in such a manner that if a train run at full speed had struck it, the engine and cars must have been thrown off and many persons killed.”
Every few miles saw another twist: at State Line, Ind., all of the passengers disembarked, ate “indifferent food at double the regular price,” and boarded a new railroad line, the Toledo and Wabash. In Lafayette, Lincoln marveled that he had already come farther than it would have taken him all day to walk as a young man. In Thorntown, a comedian’s nightmare: Lincoln starting telling one of his famous tall tales – and the train began to pull away before he got to the punch line. Lincoln could only laugh and wave from the rear platform as his audience fell away behind him. When he got to the next town, Lebanon, he saw people running up, and was told that they must be the people waiting to hear the end of his story.
The Special arrived in Indianapolis at 5 p.m., where it was saluted by 34 guns – one for every state in the Union, including those that had seceded. This was no trackside village – Indianapolis had 18,611 people, and John Nicolay estimated the crowd at 50,000, roughly three times the population. There were flags and bunting everywhere. Lincoln was called upon to speak several times: in response to a greeting from the governor; from the balcony of his hotel, the Bates House; and again to people who had not heard his earlier remarks. In his longest speech of the night, he promised to avoid “coercion” and “invasion” of the South, but insisted on the right of the government to do its business – including holding forts, collecting duties and regulating the mail. A slightly off-color joke about the difference between marriage and free love lightened the mood, plenty festive to begin with.
In the midst of this triumph came a near-disaster. For weeks, Lincoln had been composing the most important public document he had ever undertaken, his inaugural address. He had privately printed a small number of drafts, and these were jealously guarded, for fear that their contents would leak to the voracious press. On the first day of his journey, he had entrusted his copy to his son Robert, and on the evening of the 11th he turned to Robert for the speech. Nicolay evocatively captured what ensued when young Lincoln told his father that the carpetbag holding the speech had been placed in the ordinary safekeeping of the hotel, where anyone unscrupulous might find it:
A look of stupefaction passed over the countenance of Mr. Lincoln, and visions of that Inaugural in all the next morning’s newspapers floated through his imagination. Without a word he opened the door of his room, forced his way through the crowded corridor down to the office, where, with a single stride of his long legs, he swung himself across the clerk’s counter, behind which a small mountain of carpetbags of all colors had accumulated. Then drawing a little key out of his pocket he began delving for the black ones, and opened one by one those that the key would unlock, to the great surprise and amusement of the clerk and bystanders, as their miscellaneous contents came to light. Fortune favored the President-elect, for after the first half dozen trials, he found his treasures.
Evening did nothing to diminish the crowds and their hunger for contact with the man John Hay called “the great elect himself.” He recorded that “the halls, passages, and rooms have all been congested with turbulent congregations of men, all of whom had too many elbows, too much curiosity, and a perfect gushing desire to shake hands with somebody – the President, if possible, if not, with somebody who had shaken hands with him.”
Lincoln’s other secretary, Nicolay, conjured a similar scene of madness: “The House is perfectly jammed with people. Three or four ladies and as many gentlemen have even invaded the room assigned to Mr. Lincoln, while outside the door I hear the crowd pushing and grumbling and shouting in almost frantic endeavours to get to another parlor in the door of which Mr. Lincoln stands shaking hands with the multitude. It is a severe ordeal for us, and increased about tenfold for him.”
At last, around midnight, the ordeal ended, and Lincoln, Hay and Nicolay retired to bed. They had come a great distance in one day. The White House was 200 miles closer.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
As the redistricting maps turn; next stop California
This will be the seventh stop on a journey around the country addressing redistricting. After visiting and discussing parts of the east, midwest, and south; the focus shifts west to the biggest prize in major elections: California. Thus far; Texas, Indiana, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio have been dissected. Now it is California's turn.
What might lie ahead for California:
Predicting how a state will draw its new congressional districts is often a fool's errand.
But nowhere is that the case more than in California.
That's because the drawing and approval of the state's 53 districts this year is in the hands of 14 people. They are mostly amateurs, not political pros and they're not supposed to have any regard for incumbents, which means they could do just about anything.
If you're a member of Congress from California, that's a very scary proposition.
"When you go from a system that allows incumbents to draw districts that favor themselves to one that disallows considering incumbents at all, you're bound to have some incumbents paired together and some open districts," said Tom Bonier of the National Committee for an Effective Congress, which advises Democrats on the redistricting process.
Added GOP consultant Dave Gilliard: "There's a good chance that the vast majority of the congressional districts in California are not going to resemble what we have right now."
The new set-up comes courtesy of Proposition 20, which passed in the November election. Previously, the state turned over power to draw state legislative districts to this sort of bipartisan panel but Prop. 20 added congressional districts to the mix this year, and the new panel is getting started as we speak.
The 14 members of the panel are compromised of five Democrats, five Republicans and four voters with no party affiliation. They were picked out of a group of 30,000 applicants and range from a former director of the U.S. Census Bureau to a ranch owner.
Many observers expect a large amount of upheaval, but since there are so many districts and the process is largely brand new (Arizona has a somewhat similar system with citizens drawing the districts), there's really no way of knowing what they'll do.
We can, though, venture a few educated guesses:
1. It seems likely that there will be some increase in the number of competitive districts. The last round of redistricting brought one of the most effective incumbent-protection gerrymanders in the history of redistricting. In 53 districts over ten years, only one -- ONE -- district has changed hands between Republicans and Democrats. And it only switched once.
The committee doesn't necessarily need to try to draw competitive districts -- its mandate only requires that it draws "communities of interest" together -- but it may try to anyways. And even if it doesn't, it's nearly impossible for the districts to be drawn any less competitively than they are now.
2. A number of incumbents are likely to have their homes drawn into the same districts. That's a setup that could lead to incumbents running against each other or, to avoid that situation, running in districts where they don't live (which is legal). More ambitious observers think this could happen to as many as one-quarter of the state's delegation.
With 53 districts and a requirement that the panel doesn't take incumbents into account, it would be very odd if two of them were somehow not drawn into the same district. And the number of odd-shaped districts in big cities and elsewhere (many large rural districts stretch out from the big population centers in an awkward fashion) in the current map means that there is plenty of room for change if the panel wants to create a so-called "good government" -- i.e. logically shaped -- map.
3. There is unlikely to be a large shift in the number of Democrats and Republicans in the state's delegation. The state currently has 34 Democrats and 19 Republicans, which pretty accurately reflects the Democrats' level of dominance in the state. Even if the map is drastically altered, the many urban districts are likely to remain Democratic and the rural districts should largely stay Republican.
That doesn't mean there won't be changes, though. Republicans and Democrats who know the map say Republican Reps. Dan Lungren, Mary Bono Mack, Buck McKeon and Ken Calvert could be in more trouble. (All four are already in districts that have moved significantly towards Democrats in recent years and went for President Obama in 2008.) On the Democratic side, Reps. Jerry McNerney, Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa, who both had close races last year for their Fresno-area seats, could find themselves with a tougher districts.
But even if Republicans wind up losing or gaining a few seats on the commission-drawn map, it's probably a win for them. Without the commission, Democrats would control the process (they have both chambers in the state legislature and the governor's mansion) and would be able to draw whatever map they wanted to.
4. The map could well be drawn by a court in the end. If the panel cannot agree on a map or, for example, doesn't draw enough districts where a majority of residents are racial minorities, the process could go to the courts and wind up in the hands of a court-appointed map-drawer.
"The commission is so oddly put together, it's probably going to be a court map," ventured one Republican strategist who knows the situation in the Golden State.
Either way, the drawing of the map would not be in the hands of the incumbents, and sources say many incumbents are just now waking up to the possibility that their districts will be significantly different next time they run in 2012.
Members of the delegation didn't like the ballot proposition in the first place, for obvious reasons. But Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), who is in charge of the Democrats' redistricting efforts, said the commission isn't accountable to voters.
"I think it's a prime example of people who don't like what 's going on looking for an easy fix," Thompson said. "You saw the same thing with term limits."
Thompson also downplayed the possibility of major changes in the state's delegation, noting that it didn't feature many changes after the 1991 round of redistricting, when a court drew the map.
But not everyone is so serene, and there are several good reasons for that disquiet.
First, the state is chock full of assembly members and state senators who have had almost no opportunity to move up to the federal level over the last decade. Second, California has term limits, so many of these state legislators will be out of jobs in 2012. And third, members of Congress could be taking on lots of territory where they might now be as well-known as one of their opponents.
All of it adds up to a much more competitive California in 2012. Open seats and incumbents being paired up in even a few districts would be a marked change for the state, but most agree that it could go much, much further than that.
At long last, California is a state worth watching.
What might lie ahead for California:
Predicting how a state will draw its new congressional districts is often a fool's errand.
But nowhere is that the case more than in California.
That's because the drawing and approval of the state's 53 districts this year is in the hands of 14 people. They are mostly amateurs, not political pros and they're not supposed to have any regard for incumbents, which means they could do just about anything.
If you're a member of Congress from California, that's a very scary proposition.
"When you go from a system that allows incumbents to draw districts that favor themselves to one that disallows considering incumbents at all, you're bound to have some incumbents paired together and some open districts," said Tom Bonier of the National Committee for an Effective Congress, which advises Democrats on the redistricting process.
Added GOP consultant Dave Gilliard: "There's a good chance that the vast majority of the congressional districts in California are not going to resemble what we have right now."
The new set-up comes courtesy of Proposition 20, which passed in the November election. Previously, the state turned over power to draw state legislative districts to this sort of bipartisan panel but Prop. 20 added congressional districts to the mix this year, and the new panel is getting started as we speak.
The 14 members of the panel are compromised of five Democrats, five Republicans and four voters with no party affiliation. They were picked out of a group of 30,000 applicants and range from a former director of the U.S. Census Bureau to a ranch owner.
Many observers expect a large amount of upheaval, but since there are so many districts and the process is largely brand new (Arizona has a somewhat similar system with citizens drawing the districts), there's really no way of knowing what they'll do.
We can, though, venture a few educated guesses:
1. It seems likely that there will be some increase in the number of competitive districts. The last round of redistricting brought one of the most effective incumbent-protection gerrymanders in the history of redistricting. In 53 districts over ten years, only one -- ONE -- district has changed hands between Republicans and Democrats. And it only switched once.
The committee doesn't necessarily need to try to draw competitive districts -- its mandate only requires that it draws "communities of interest" together -- but it may try to anyways. And even if it doesn't, it's nearly impossible for the districts to be drawn any less competitively than they are now.
2. A number of incumbents are likely to have their homes drawn into the same districts. That's a setup that could lead to incumbents running against each other or, to avoid that situation, running in districts where they don't live (which is legal). More ambitious observers think this could happen to as many as one-quarter of the state's delegation.
With 53 districts and a requirement that the panel doesn't take incumbents into account, it would be very odd if two of them were somehow not drawn into the same district. And the number of odd-shaped districts in big cities and elsewhere (many large rural districts stretch out from the big population centers in an awkward fashion) in the current map means that there is plenty of room for change if the panel wants to create a so-called "good government" -- i.e. logically shaped -- map.
3. There is unlikely to be a large shift in the number of Democrats and Republicans in the state's delegation. The state currently has 34 Democrats and 19 Republicans, which pretty accurately reflects the Democrats' level of dominance in the state. Even if the map is drastically altered, the many urban districts are likely to remain Democratic and the rural districts should largely stay Republican.
That doesn't mean there won't be changes, though. Republicans and Democrats who know the map say Republican Reps. Dan Lungren, Mary Bono Mack, Buck McKeon and Ken Calvert could be in more trouble. (All four are already in districts that have moved significantly towards Democrats in recent years and went for President Obama in 2008.) On the Democratic side, Reps. Jerry McNerney, Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa, who both had close races last year for their Fresno-area seats, could find themselves with a tougher districts.
But even if Republicans wind up losing or gaining a few seats on the commission-drawn map, it's probably a win for them. Without the commission, Democrats would control the process (they have both chambers in the state legislature and the governor's mansion) and would be able to draw whatever map they wanted to.
4. The map could well be drawn by a court in the end. If the panel cannot agree on a map or, for example, doesn't draw enough districts where a majority of residents are racial minorities, the process could go to the courts and wind up in the hands of a court-appointed map-drawer.
"The commission is so oddly put together, it's probably going to be a court map," ventured one Republican strategist who knows the situation in the Golden State.
Either way, the drawing of the map would not be in the hands of the incumbents, and sources say many incumbents are just now waking up to the possibility that their districts will be significantly different next time they run in 2012.
Members of the delegation didn't like the ballot proposition in the first place, for obvious reasons. But Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), who is in charge of the Democrats' redistricting efforts, said the commission isn't accountable to voters.
"I think it's a prime example of people who don't like what 's going on looking for an easy fix," Thompson said. "You saw the same thing with term limits."
Thompson also downplayed the possibility of major changes in the state's delegation, noting that it didn't feature many changes after the 1991 round of redistricting, when a court drew the map.
But not everyone is so serene, and there are several good reasons for that disquiet.
First, the state is chock full of assembly members and state senators who have had almost no opportunity to move up to the federal level over the last decade. Second, California has term limits, so many of these state legislators will be out of jobs in 2012. And third, members of Congress could be taking on lots of territory where they might now be as well-known as one of their opponents.
All of it adds up to a much more competitive California in 2012. Open seats and incumbents being paired up in even a few districts would be a marked change for the state, but most agree that it could go much, much further than that.
At long last, California is a state worth watching.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
As the redistricting maps turn; next stop Ohio
This is the next installment of the tour around the country addressing and targeting the topic of redistricting and its impact on the 2012 elections. Up to this point; Texas, Indiana, Georgia, Illinois, and Massachusetts have all been highlighted. Now, the focus shifts to Ohio. A state with a Republican governor replacing a Democratic one and a state that saw Republicans make gains in Columbus.
Analyzing Ohio:
Ohio is losing two congressional seats, which means 2012 could feature incumbent battles galore in the Buckeye State.
With Ohio Republicans in charge of the redistricting process, two Cleveland-area Democrats are almost sure to be drawn into the same district. The big unknown is where else the GOP decides to eliminate the second seat.
The GOP controls redistricting after winning the governor's mansion and holding both chambers of the state legislature in 2010. But the announcement a few weeks ago that the state will lose two House seats is likely to jeopardize a Republican seat.
By winning five seats in Ohio in 2010, Republicans are basically at their seat ceiling right now. They hold 13 of 18 seats, and with two of those seats set for elimination, maintaining 13 winnable districts will be very, very difficult.
"That would require some acrobatics very few Republicans have ever attempted," said David Wasserman, a redistricting expert at the Cook Political Report.
The first seat is relatively easy for Republicans to eliminate. All five Democrats in the state's delegation are clustered in adjoining districts in northern and northeastern Ohio.
Thanks to population loss in the Cleveland area, eliminating one of those districts is as simple as merging those five districts into four, and letting the chips fall where they may.
There has been a good bit of consternation among liberals that their champion -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) -- would be targeted by this process, but a more likely candidate would appear to be Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio).
Her Akron-based 13th district borders three other Democrats -- Kucinich to the north, Rep. Marcy Kaptur to the west and Rep. Tim Ryan to the east. By moving more of Akron into Ryan's 17th district, more of Lorain into Kaptur's 9th and expanding Kucinich's Cleveland-based 10th district slightly, Sutton's district would basically be collapsed.
The remaining Republican areas in the middle of Sutton's district could be given to freshman Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) in the 16th district to help shore him up.
The options for Sutton, at that point, are all bad. She could run in a primary against Kucinich or Ryan (whose district would be taking on Sutton's geographic base), but in neither case would she be given much of a chance.
Kaptur and Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) are most likely to come out off the process unscathed. Fudge's district, the state's lone majority-black seat, probably won't be significantly altered, and while Kaptur may take on more territory, she's the least likely primary opponent for Sutton.
Once Republicans have reduced five Democratic seats to four, they must decide where to cut next.
The logical answer is southeast Ohio.
Southeastern Ohio has lost significant population, and the congressmen representing the area will both be freshmen with little political clout.
Incoming Reps. Bob Gibbs and Bill Johnson could see their districts merged in order to protect the rest of the GOP's gains in the state, which are pretty tenuous right now.
Johnson will represent the 6th district, which was drawn along the eastern Ohio border for outgoing Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland when he was in the House. Gibbs will take over the massive and rural 18th district, which shares a long border with the 6th. Pushing those two districts together is a pretty easy proposition.
But geography isn't the only reason Gibbs and Johnson are logical targets. The other is that they are the two least-heralded freshmen in the delegation. (Republicans have high hopes for Renacci and Rep. Steve Stivers, and Rep. Steve Chabot has been in Congress before). Johnson, an anti-tax advocate whose victory over former Rep. Charlie Wilson (D) was among the most surprising in the country, wasn't a top recruit and isn't close to the GOP establishment in the state.
The other option for the GOP could be if Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) or another member of the delegation opts to run against Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) in 2012. But collapsing a district in the middle of the state, where Jordan's 4th district is, would be considerably more difficult than doing it in the southeast.
What's clear, though, is that a Republican will probably lose his seat in the redstricting process --a fact even former state GOP chairman Bob Bennett has acknowledged.
"I think it is going to be very difficult to create a map in Ohio where the Democrats only have three seats in a state that's a competitive two-party state," Bennett told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer recently.
While getting rid of one Republican may be painful, the alternative was much worse for Republicans. Had Democrats held on to either the governor's mansion or the state House (where they held a slight edge before November), Republicans wouldn't have nearly as much leeway with the map. And members like Stivers, Chabot, Renacci and Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio) wouldn't be able to count on getting shored up.
Simply put: A best-case scenario for the GOP in the next Congress would probably be to hold 12 of 16 remaining congressional districts.
Analyzing Ohio:
Ohio is losing two congressional seats, which means 2012 could feature incumbent battles galore in the Buckeye State.
With Ohio Republicans in charge of the redistricting process, two Cleveland-area Democrats are almost sure to be drawn into the same district. The big unknown is where else the GOP decides to eliminate the second seat.
The GOP controls redistricting after winning the governor's mansion and holding both chambers of the state legislature in 2010. But the announcement a few weeks ago that the state will lose two House seats is likely to jeopardize a Republican seat.
By winning five seats in Ohio in 2010, Republicans are basically at their seat ceiling right now. They hold 13 of 18 seats, and with two of those seats set for elimination, maintaining 13 winnable districts will be very, very difficult.
"That would require some acrobatics very few Republicans have ever attempted," said David Wasserman, a redistricting expert at the Cook Political Report.
The first seat is relatively easy for Republicans to eliminate. All five Democrats in the state's delegation are clustered in adjoining districts in northern and northeastern Ohio.
Thanks to population loss in the Cleveland area, eliminating one of those districts is as simple as merging those five districts into four, and letting the chips fall where they may.
There has been a good bit of consternation among liberals that their champion -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) -- would be targeted by this process, but a more likely candidate would appear to be Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio).
Her Akron-based 13th district borders three other Democrats -- Kucinich to the north, Rep. Marcy Kaptur to the west and Rep. Tim Ryan to the east. By moving more of Akron into Ryan's 17th district, more of Lorain into Kaptur's 9th and expanding Kucinich's Cleveland-based 10th district slightly, Sutton's district would basically be collapsed.
The remaining Republican areas in the middle of Sutton's district could be given to freshman Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) in the 16th district to help shore him up.
The options for Sutton, at that point, are all bad. She could run in a primary against Kucinich or Ryan (whose district would be taking on Sutton's geographic base), but in neither case would she be given much of a chance.
Kaptur and Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) are most likely to come out off the process unscathed. Fudge's district, the state's lone majority-black seat, probably won't be significantly altered, and while Kaptur may take on more territory, she's the least likely primary opponent for Sutton.
Once Republicans have reduced five Democratic seats to four, they must decide where to cut next.
The logical answer is southeast Ohio.
Southeastern Ohio has lost significant population, and the congressmen representing the area will both be freshmen with little political clout.
Incoming Reps. Bob Gibbs and Bill Johnson could see their districts merged in order to protect the rest of the GOP's gains in the state, which are pretty tenuous right now.
Johnson will represent the 6th district, which was drawn along the eastern Ohio border for outgoing Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland when he was in the House. Gibbs will take over the massive and rural 18th district, which shares a long border with the 6th. Pushing those two districts together is a pretty easy proposition.
But geography isn't the only reason Gibbs and Johnson are logical targets. The other is that they are the two least-heralded freshmen in the delegation. (Republicans have high hopes for Renacci and Rep. Steve Stivers, and Rep. Steve Chabot has been in Congress before). Johnson, an anti-tax advocate whose victory over former Rep. Charlie Wilson (D) was among the most surprising in the country, wasn't a top recruit and isn't close to the GOP establishment in the state.
The other option for the GOP could be if Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) or another member of the delegation opts to run against Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) in 2012. But collapsing a district in the middle of the state, where Jordan's 4th district is, would be considerably more difficult than doing it in the southeast.
What's clear, though, is that a Republican will probably lose his seat in the redstricting process --a fact even former state GOP chairman Bob Bennett has acknowledged.
"I think it is going to be very difficult to create a map in Ohio where the Democrats only have three seats in a state that's a competitive two-party state," Bennett told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer recently.
While getting rid of one Republican may be painful, the alternative was much worse for Republicans. Had Democrats held on to either the governor's mansion or the state House (where they held a slight edge before November), Republicans wouldn't have nearly as much leeway with the map. And members like Stivers, Chabot, Renacci and Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio) wouldn't be able to count on getting shored up.
Simply put: A best-case scenario for the GOP in the next Congress would probably be to hold 12 of 16 remaining congressional districts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
