Redistricting prompts new look at House size

 

Redistricting prompts a new look at the oldest subject

This should be election issue

 

Gordon L. Weil

The U.S. House should take a new look at an old subject.  It should consider adding members.

Frenzied congressional redistricting and the failure of Congress have made this proposal an option that merits serious and early consideration.  This column recaptures and updates my earlier pieces.

The Constitution’s Framers debated the size of the House.  The argument became so heated that it was the only time that George Washington spoke on issue at the Constitutional Convention.

How many people should each House member represent?  Too few would be undemocratic but too many might be unmanageable.  James Madison, the chief drafter and later the fourth president, argued the problem would solve itself.  As more states joined, the House would naturally grow from the original 65.

That worked until 1900, when the number of members reached at 435.  In 1929, it was formally frozen there.  When five more territories became states, their seats were taken from other states.

Today, the number of people in some House districts is larger that the entire population of some states.  Each Maine district includes more people than the entire population of the state of Wyoming.   That means a Wyoming voter has more power than a Maine voter and far more than a voter in California.

An easy path to voter equality would be to set the population for each district across the country at the population of the smallest state, Wyoming.  I calculate that would increase the House to about 573 members, an added 138 seats.  An even larger House could make sense.

Adding new states should mean more seats were added, as originally intended.  The number of House seats should also increase as the national population grows. The purpose should be to keep the House representative and its members in touch with voters.

That increase would still leave the U.S. with a higher population per voter than any other major nation.  Citizens would remain distant from their representatives, and members might remain limited as true representatives of their electorate.

One advantage of expansion would be the need for complete redistricting into smaller districts.  Racial or political gerrymandering would become more difficult as districts became more compact. And it would certainly open the way for many new faces in Congress, which could enable more women and minorities to gain seats.

With a larger House, each member would not need to be assigned to multiple committees. Assigned to fewer committees, they would have time to become more expert.  There might also be added committees or subcommittees, allowing each to have a far sharper focus than is possible today.

The Supreme Court is moving steadily toward stripping regulatory agencies of their independent powers. When it completes its works, their decision-making powers would end up with the president.  Yet regulation is nothing more than powers that Congress could itself exercise by law.  Congress, not the president, could take on more responsibility.

A larger Congress should include enough members that focused House committees could take on more detailed decision-making.  Such targeted committees could produce strict, general rules, allowing less room for special interests to work out deals with regulators behind closed doors.

It would also be possible to convert independent agencies into advisory adjuncts of Congress.  Their decisions would be recommendations, which could then be approved or disapproved by a vote of the relevant committee and, ultimately, the full Congress.  This procedure would still retain the presidential veto power, but White House control would no longer be absolute.

If Congress doesn’t act, it will keep losing its powers to the president.

There’s another benefit to the proposal for expanding the House.  Many want the electoral vote for president to better align with the popular vote.  One major reason they can be misaligned is the unbalanced voting power of some states over others. Each state’s electoral vote is the sum of the number of its House and Senate members.

If the House were larger, the Electoral College would be larger and the Senate votes would be diluted.  The number of voters per electoral vote would be closer to equal than it is now.  With electoral votes better distributed by population, the electoral vote would come closer to reflecting the popular will. 

Of course, each state would retain at least one House seat and two senators, no matter its population.  That’s what the Constitution requires and would prevent a fully popular vote for president.

While amending the Constitution is almost impossible given today’s political climate and the influence of the Supreme Court, some issues like term limits or maximum ages of officials cannot be addressed. But Congress itself can change the number of House members, which could breathe some new life into a failing system.

House expansion is not political daydreaming; it could turn out to be critically important.

 

Trump’s last chance; redistricting chaos; war powers

 

Trump’s last chance; redistricting chaos; war powers

Gordon L. Weil

Redistricting out of control

In the latest round in the race to redistrict congressional districts, the Virginia Supreme Court undercut Democratic hopes by overruling the results of a statewide referendum on redistricting.  A court has blocked a vote of the people. Unusual, but a sign of the unlimited power of the judiciary.

Another recent development is the prompt action to eliminate Democratic districts, notably those represented by African Americans, in the wake of last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that minorities would have to show clear intent to discriminate to block such moves.  It’s easy to disguise such bias in Republican states that are eliminating Democratic districts.

Chief Justice John Roberts protests that people should not see the Court as political.  Given that swift redistricting took place days after the last time the Court slashed the Voting Rights Act, the Chief asks too much.  Maybe he should worry that people will believe the Court is hopelessly out of touch or, worse, racist.

Some states used to elect members of Congress on a single statewide ballot, but Congress used its constitutional power to require the use of districts.  We are now getting the equivalent of single, statewide party rule when partisan gerrymandering takes place, which the Court approves.

Because Congress can require the use of the districts, it should also require they meet standards that prevent weirdly shaped districts created to serve partisan purposes.  For example, it could require counties to be kept intact as much as possible and that each district must be compact.

Trump’s last chance?

President Trump realizes that there’s a good chance the Republicans will lose control of the House and possibly of the Senate.  The Democrats could block many of his initiatives.  He would have to deal with them, a prospect he probably intensely dislikes.

As a result, he wants to accomplish as much of his agenda as possible this year, before a new Congress takes office.  His wish list could well include these items:

1. End hostilities with Iran, open the Strait of Hormuz and get oil and gas prices down fast. 

2. Get the next One Big Beautiful Budget passed with a huge increase in military spending.

3. Quit NATO in law as well as fact.

4. See Putin end Russia’s war with Ukraine, allowing Trump to claim the Nobel Peace Prize.

5. Force changes in the Cuban and Brazilian governments, thus confirming his Donroe Doctrine.

6. Trash the USMCA trade agreement with Canada and Mexico.

7. See a court convict just one of his political opponents.

Leaders double down

Trump faces falling poll ratings.  Putin worries about being toppled. Netanyahu must make it through upcoming elections.  All run risks caused by their military excesses.  The question is whether they will find ways to manage their problems by admitting their errors of judgment.

So far, they share a common characteristic.  When things start to go bad, you double down.  That does not reverse the earlier mistake; it makes matters worse.

Trump’s obstinacy on Iran has brought economic harm in the U.S. and across the world.  His inconsistent and idiosyncratic policies have cost the U.S. its world leadership.  His theme is America First, but he applies it in ways that don’t serve the long-term national interest.  He may not care for anything more than ego gratification (passport image, Kennedy Center).

Putin’s war has lasted longer than the Soviet Union’s participation in World War II.  Russians have noticed and even some of his loyal supporters have openly questioned his Ukraine invasion. He reportedly works out of a bunker.  But he won’t admit defeat.

Netanyahu may be popular in Israel, but not much elsewhere.  He is losing the backing of many Democrats, an unfortunate development when Israel has long relied on strong bipartisan American support.  When the dust settles, he may have escaped his personal legal trouble, which seems to matter a lot, but not the long-term cost to Israel, which seems not to matter enough.

The War Powers Act

The War Powers Act requires the president to notify congressional leaders within 48 hours of launching military operations.  Congress must authorize the operations within 60 days (30 additional are possible) or they must be halted.

Though he doubted the WPA’s constitutionality, President Trump provided timely notice after the Iran War began.   A tenuous ceasefire stopped most offensive action within 60 days, though large U.S. forces remain ready to act.  He claimed that no congressional action was required, because of the ceasefire.

The WPA says nothing about armed conflict continuing; it does not mention suspension of the 60 days once the period begins. It’s the starting date that matters, making Trump’s interpretation dubious.  But, so far, the WPA has seemed to work.

 

Is Trump becoming desperate? Outllook for 2026

Gordon L. Weil

Running under the surface of all politics these days is next year’s battle for congressional control.  It will amount to a report card on President Trump, and it could set the terms for his administration’s final years and the 2028 presidential elections.

Trump knows that.   This week he made a televised address that sounded like a campaign speech.  He asked voters to withhold their judgment on his promises until they see the results next year.  Meanwhile, without the required congressional approval, he may make transition payments to taxpayers, beginning with a bonus to military personnel.

That he is desperate to turn around his falling poll ratings was evident from his false claims and extravagant promises.   For example, no reduction in drug prices could exceed 100 percent, but he promised more – “even 600 percent.”  His speech contained none of the bipartisan appeal of a traditional presidential address; it was pure Trump campaigning.

Can he hold onto the congressional control that gives him the ability to do almost anything he wants?   The 2026 elections hold the answer.

The Republican majority now hold a narrow and fluctuating majority in the House and a 53-47 majority in the Senate.  

The party of an incumbent president usually loses seats in midterm elections.   Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, only Bill Clinton and the second George Bush picked up seats.  Unlike Trump, they both enjoyed high popularity at the time. 

The Democrats should flip the House.   Trump believes GOP gerrymandering can produce new Republican seats to offset Democratic gains.  The Democrats have reacted by trying to redistrict in states they control.

Even if he is right, a GOP House majority might no longer give him unlimited power.   MAGA loyalists dislike his changing positions on releasing the Epstein files, and his foreign moves.  The obviously limited role allowed House GOP women is also beginning to cause problems.  MAGA members have begun to defy Speaker Mike Johnson, on whom he relies.  

The Senate is not subject to redistricting.  The GOP may now feel safe, but history shows that, like the House, Senate midterm races are influenced by the president’s popularity.  

The election results yield several possible scenarios.

The third term scenario.  Republicans retain control of both houses and act as if Trumpism would roll on in 2028.  Fearful of his ability to defeat them in primaries, GOP members continue to allow him broad powers.

The lame duck scenario.  No matter which party controls one or both houses, Trump’s influence fades.  Members look forward to no longer having him at the top of the ticket, and being forced to run on their own records.

The Democrats would try to create issues for 2028, as they have with healthcare assistance.     If they control the House, they would have an enhanced forum to make their case.

Stalemate scenario.  If the Democrats win the House, they will be able to block at least some of the president’s proposals.  If Trump holds fast to his treatment of the Democrats as “the enemy,” the government could be deadlocked.   The 2028 presidential campaign becomes the sole focus.

If the Democrats win the Senate, it could mean political war.  They could block Trump’s nominees to the courts and executive agencies.  While his veto would limit their chances to dictate their own policies, his power would be substantially reduced.  His eyes on the Prize, he would concentrate on foreign affairs, where congressional power is limited.

Compromise scenario.  If the Democrats were to control either or both houses, Trump could decide to try to make deals with them, in line with political tradition.   His concern with his legacy is greater than his commitment to GOP conservatism.  He wants to be seen positively and hailed for great achievements, so compromise could yield more for him than conflict.

That could explain his surprisingly friendly encounter with Zohran Mamdani, the newly elected New York city mayor.  He was friendly to Mamdani, making many MAGA backers nervous.    Just as an aging President Biden faded from the scene, Trump could compensate for his aging by being less combative.

The Democrats’ burden would then face the choice of either cooperating, which the polls say people want, or seeking partisan redlines as a way of striking a clear contrast with Trump and undermining 2028 Trumpism. 

The media focus is now on gerrymandering and the contest to redraw House maps, but the real 2026 contest may be about whether Trump has retained enough popularity to carry on.   Or is the electorate returning to more traditional GOP conservatism and regaining some confidence in the Democrats?  

Mere opposition to Trump is not enough as the Democratic platform.  While they may not achieve total unity, the Democrats need better leadership and to offer practical alternatives with bipartisan appeal if they want to stage a comeback next year.