Comments
GELFAND’S WORLD - There are some decent logical points being made by those who oppose Proposition 50. They think of it as a step backwards, and they are right. Nevertheless, I support Prop 50 and will vote for it. My argument is that – although Prop 50 undoes some meritorious work which created fair voting districts – the anti-50 arguments miss the main point.
It is a point that goes back to well before 1787 and has been fought over during the entire existence of this republic. It is the point that made for the infamous three-fifths compromise (so badly misunderstood by most people nowadays) which established each slave as worth 3/5 of a white person solely for the purpose of giving extra voting power to the slave states, while giving no rights whatsoever to slaves.
What we now refer to as the Constitutional Convention convened in 1787 to solidify the gains of the Revolutionary War against Britain. The delegates rapidly decided that they should do more than just do a little cosmetic remodeling of the confederation which then existed. They thought hard about creating a strong national government that would somehow involve state representation in a national legislature.
But entangled in this effort was the competition between southern states which based their entire existences around slavery vs. northern states which based their economies on manufacturing and the agricultural production of free citizens. The differences generated numerous conflicts that would have to be worked out before any national government could be brought into being.
So, it was critical to decide how many congressional representatives each state would get for its delegation to the House of Representatives. And that’s where the three-fifths compromise came about. Southern states did not dispute that slaves had no personal rights, did not vote, and were considered to be the property of the slave owner. Nevertheless, they wanted their slaves to be counted in each census total merely to provide them with more congressional representatives. To the modern sensibility it seems ironic and hypocritical, but the founders were determined to come to a working agreement so that they could continue as the union of all the states.
I raise these historical points to illustrate the fact that struggles between competing factions for control of the national legislature have been a part of this nation since it came into existence. In the beginning, it was about apportionment between southern slave states and northern free states. At the moment, it is about the competition between the two major parties, where congressional delegates from both parties can come from any particular state.
All along, it has included the competition between competing sides for control over the House of Representatives. The year 2025 shows just how important that battle is: A small number of Democrats more and a small number of Republicans less, and much of Donald Trump’s mischief could have been prevented. If nothing else, the ugly move to take health care away from millions of Americans through the so-called Big Beautiful Bill would have been impossible. And we would have had a more unified resistance to the terroristic slaughter of thousands of Ukrainians by Russia.
And this is where Prop 50 comes in. It’s got to do with the fact that, all other things being equal, control of the House will almost certainly pass into the hands of the Democrats after the November, 2026 elections.
But of course “all other things” are not equal. Consider the following: As a nation, we have traditionally held the national census every 10 years. This is by Constitutional edict. We have also used the census results to calculate exactly how many House seats belong to each state. By tradition, each state then reapportioned its electoral maps based on the census results.
The process of reapportioning House districts has not been without partisan fervor. Quite to the contrary. In the partisan mind, the goal is to maximize the number of seats that will be won by your own side. The way to do this is to establish districts that have just enough voters of your own party to make it sure that they will win for your side, and to dust enough of the opposition voters into such districts that their votes will be effectively wasted. The process is known as gerrymandering, named after a long ago governor who took the process to extremes. Whether or not gerrymandering is the case in any particular district depends on lots of factors. It doesn’t always happen, but it is currently legal according to the Supreme Court.
What we don’t traditionally do is reapportion House districts any time that we feel the need to steal a few seats. But that is what the Texas approach has been this year. Donald Trump, it is alleged, pushed the governor and legislature of Texas to do a mid-decade reapportionment so as to elect several more Republicans in 2026.
So notice – it is an attempt to take control of the House beginning in the 2027 session through illicit means. Those means are not necessarily illegal, but they violate a tradition that has been in effect for many years. Trump and the state of Texas have changed the rules in mid-decade in order to gain the majority in the House.
Let’s repeat that: The rules for control of the House of Representatives have been changed mid-decade, and without negotiation with the other side.
This cannot be allowed to stand. Unless we are willing to accept an ever-increasing level of authoritarianism in our lives, we have to resist.
And that’s the counterargument. The conclusion may be distasteful – but if we are going to fight, then we have to do so inside of the new rules that the other side has established. And those new rules involve a mid-decade reapportionment of our own.
And importantly, that reapportionment that we will do has to create enough House seats on the Democratic side as to match or exceed the number of Republican seats that have just now been illicitly created in Texas.
So here we are. We merely adapted our own system to do what Texas has already done, but to balance their outrageous action with one of our own.
Yes, it is an uncomfortable thing to do. Other Democratically controlled states may find themselves doing much the same thing, depending on whether other Republican controlled states follow the Texas example.
The fact that Democratically controlled states such as New York and Illinois are available to match any new Republican gerrymanders may deter those other states (Indiana, for example) from joining in the fray. It would be useful if this latest Trumpian outrage stays limited to Texas and California, and the rest of the states can sit tight until the next census.
Is there a better way? I think that there is. Note that the following suggestion is based on the congress and the Supreme Court continuing to permit purely political gerrymandering.
Sometime after the next census, let the states come together in a national meeting which will be entirely voluntary. The Democratically controlled states will each come prepared with multiple maps, some more gerrymandered, and some more fairly apportioned (comparable to what our maps in California look like right now). The Republican controlled states can do the same. Both sides can give a little in order to allow each state to move towards a fairer map. There could even be a negotiated settlement that would advise the congress and the president to adopt new legislation which would limit gerrymandering and control racial bias.
So here is my answer to those who oppose Prop 50 because it abolishes the fair and proper system we created and now will be adopting our own gerrymander. The answer is simple and obvious: The fight is not within our state, but is a national fight for control of the House of Representatives. Since the Constitution and the current Supreme Court have allowed for the present system, we either play by the current rules or we lose.
It’s that simple. But if and when the other side agrees to a negotiated settlement that allows for the prevailing party (whichever it is) to hold its fairly won majority, we will go along with it. Until then, we don’t have a lot of choices. In saying this, I also want to say that I respect the concerns raised by the opposition and suggest that we work towards a fair settlement.
(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])
