Census: Its links to Covid-19, seats in Congress, Maine statehood

Gordon L. Weil

Next week, we may find one small benefit in Covid-19.

On April 1, the nation's census is to be taken, and more people are likely to be staying home than would be normal. Because people are supposed to be counted by where they live, that could make the census more accurate.

The number people in the country are counted, as required by the Constitution, so that seats in the House of Representatives can be distributed fairly among the states. As the population shifts, states may gain or lose seats, though no state may have less than one.

The constitutional rule is that the census counts all the people, not only citizens or voters. The most obvious reason for this rule is that government affects everybody, whether or not they can vote for members of the House.

At the time the Constitution was drafted, women, children, and almost all people of African descent did not have the right to vote. But they were counted, though a slave counted then as only a fraction of a free person. Indians on reservations were not counted.

Today's census counts everybody, including foreigners, legal or otherwise, unless they are diplomats. The Constitution covers the rights of people, not citizens, so laws apply to everybody. Beyond that, the census influences federal government financial aid to states based on the number of inhabitants.

Every state wants as much influence as it can gain in the federal government, so the census, taken every ten years, is critically important. The House members elected in 2022 will be allocated according to the population counted next Wednesday. That allocation will last until 2032. Maine wants you to be counted.

How big is the congressional pie that will be divided? When the Constitution was drafted, George Washington insisted that districts should be as small as possible. He wanted to keep government close to the people.

There are now 435 seats in the House, a number that has not changed in a century. Meanwhile the population of the country has almost tripled according to the 2010 census.

Congress can change the number of House members, but it has refused to act. Some small states would lose influence in an enlarged House, so they resist change. Some worry that, if the House grew larger, it would be unmanageable. Added cost is a relatively small worry, because the cost of Congress is a microscopic part of the federal budget.

Each of the smallest states gets a guaranteed House seat. Because districts do not cross state lines, the allocation of seats among states must be rounded off. The result of both these factors is that some districts are far more populous than others. Right now, the Montana, with a single district, has close to twice as many people as one of the Rhode Island districts.

The problem could be greatly reduced, though not completely resolved, by a simple act of Congress. Each district could be made to have the same population as the population of the single-district state with the smallest population. In effect, that would eliminate the special weight given to the smallest states. The equal representation of states in the Senate would remain.

In that case, the House would increase in size by only about 110 members. Rounding would remain, but its impact would be reduced. A voter in Montana would count more nearly as much as a voter in Rhode Island.

State districts must meet the requirement of “one person, one vote.” Each state district has the same population. Enlarging the size of the House would ensure that rule was also applied to the country as a whole to the fullest extent possible.

The two most obvious results would be greater fairness and a lot of new faces in Congress. And enlarging the House would be a useful step in keeping Congress closer to the people.

The first census was directly relevant to Maine statehood, now celebrating its 200^th anniversary.

At the 1788 Massachusetts convention to ratify the Constitution, leaders worried that Maine delegates would reject the draft because it required a state's consent to the loss of any of its territory to create a new state. If Mainers opposed the Constitution on this point, Massachusetts might not have had enough votes for ratification. A majority of Maine delegates voted in favor.

That concern was a strong indication that all knew that Maine was on track to become an independent state.

Just two years later, in the 1790 census, Maine was counted separately from the rest of Massachusetts. Vermont and Kentucky, also census districts but not states, were similarly counted separately. All three became states.

It was up to Maine and Massachusetts to make the split. Maine decided to leave the Bay State after Massachusetts failed to help against the British invasion in the War of 1812. Massachusetts was willing to see Democratic Maine depart, reducing the threat to Federalist Party rule in the Commonwealth. In 1820, Congress used Maine, a free state, to balance Missouri, a slave state, in enlarging the Union.

The census plays a central role in America's history and government. It's important for you to be counted so you will count in that history.

Fixing coronavirus impact requires major government action

Gordon L. Weil

The coronavirus pandemic is illustrating a basic truth about the U.S.

We are poor at long-term preparing and better at short-term reacting.

The country was unprepared for dealing with a worldwide public health crisis. Even if other countries were similarly unready, that's no excuse for a country that considers itself and is widely considered by others to be the world leader.

The principal reason for lack of preparedness was the popular belief that the federal government is too big and people ought to be able to keep their own money rather than turning it over to a faceless government that independently follows it own agenda.

When the U.S. House of Representatives voted 363-40 for an economic stimulus package to deal with the virus' effect, one member opposed it because it would "expand government massively." In fact, it increases the size of government little, but it would be a major increase in government spending.

The basic function of any government is to protect public health and safety. But that takes money. Even worse, from the viewpoint of opponents, it needs funding before there is even a problem, when people would rather keep the money in their own hands. Why spend money on a police force, when there's no crime?

A variation on this theme was President Trump's initial focus on the stock market and, indirectly, on the economy. He favored leaving potentially ill people stranded on a cruise ship rather than bringing them ashore for testing and treatment. At home, they would run up the count of those affected, potentially harming the stock market.

Then, the president complained about the inadequacy of federal procedures to deal with the new virus, implying it was the fault of his predecessors. By now, he had been president more than three years, so if there were a preparedness problem, it could have been fixed on his watch. Instead, he proposed spending cuts.

Meanwhile, much of the rest of the world faces similar problems. For a century, the world has looked to the U.S. for leadership in a global crisis. This one gives the U.S. an opportunity to recover that role, work with Europe and demonstrate its superiority to the Chinese regime.

If any proof were needed of a panic, people had to look no further than the stock market. Share prices are supposed to be forecasters of the future economy. If they are to be believed, a recession seems inevitable.

How can government leaders prevent panic? Merely counting gross numbers of tests and respirators is not the path to panic's end. They need to informed, honest and complete in their explanations. That creates a sense of confidence and reduces harmful rumors.

Having taken credit for the run-up in stock prices, he worried that his political fate could be undermined by their collapse. In minimizing the crisis, he failed to understand that he would not be held responsible for developments that nobody could control. He pushed for lower interest rates and easy money, and the Federal Reserve obliged him.

Then, Trump made a major course correction. He began talking about the market being secondary to controlling the spread of the virus. He talked with the nation's governors. He stopped blaming his predecessors.

He even praised the media. In fairness to him, some of them seemed intent on tripping him up. In fairness to them, they did not report fake news.

Above all, he has backed a huge economic stimulus, contrary to the usual GOP position and closer to the Democrats. But massive new spending and creating more money will add to an already large national debt and fuel inflation. Eventually, there must be a tax increase, but the bill will be paid long after the presidential election.

The stimulus should be targeted at relieving economic pain and preserving key industries when their revenues fall to the point they cannot pay workers. Many of the opponents of "big government" now recognize that only the government has the economic power to help.

The crisis will have an impact on the presidential election. The question will be whether it has educated people that they are, in fact, choosing how to spend their own money when they elect leaders to use tax revenues in preparing to meet possible future needs and crises.

The Democratic proponents of increased government action for dealing with the long-term effects of this and other problems are not "socialists." In fact, much work can be carried out by the private sector, as in the current development of a coronavirus vaccine.

Without understanding that we must devote more resources to being better prepared, the coronavirus crisis would serve mainly as a sign of worse things to come.

States play major role in coronavirus crisis; emergency responsibilities could grow

Gordon L. Weil

In February, President Trump met with the National Governors Association. During a long and rambling session, including much praise for his policies, the president spent less than 20 seconds talking about the coronavirus. He found no need for any state action.

His full remarks: "Now, the virus that we're having to do – you know, a lot of people think that it goes away in April with the heat – as the heat comes in. Typically, that will go away in April. We're in great shape though. We have 12 cases – 11 cases and many of them are in good shape now."

A month earlier, clear warnings had been issued by qualified scientists and in the media about the outbreak in Wuhan, China, of a new viral illness. The world was familiar with earlier virus outbreaks that had been taken seriously.

The World Health Organization had announced that the coronavirus was a “public-health emergency of international concern.” Trump had already shut down entry for people from China, though American citizens were admitted.

As part of a clear change in his approach to the crisis, on Monday Trump had a conference call with the governors. He was nonpartisan in tone and recognized they would need to take strong action of their own,

While it was not pleasant to dwell on the possible effect of a new viral strain, Trump had missed an unusual opportunity to mobilize national action. In a country as vast as the U.S. and with a communicable virus, getting the states involved in reacting along with the federal government would have made sense.

It still does. On Monday, Trump had a conference call with the governors. It was non-partisan in tone. Some governors were reportedly surprised that they were expected to act rather than waiting for the federal government to direct and support them.

The NGA had failed to use the opportunity to consider the threat from the virus and even to organize a regular interstate contact network. The states are frequently pushed out of the picture by the federal government, but this time was different. States may have grown accustomed to a subordinate role.

To contradict the president's original, optimistic report would have risked making the issue a part of the political campaign. The NGA tries to remain as non-partisan as possible. Still, the organization might have provided governors a briefing by a scientist.

At least, then, states might have reacted earlier. Upon returning home, governors could have checked on state preparedness for a virus and if there was anything else they should be doing. Instead, many accepted the president's reassurance that the virus was no big deal.

Did local journalists question state government officials about planning for the virus? They, too, needed to get more actively involved. Regular, complete and accurate reporting on a spreading virus is essential. Local news could focus best on matters close to affected people.

Governors are close to the concerns of people in their states. They can choose on their own to cooperate across state lines. State powers to deal with threats to public health and safety are legally greater than the powers of the federal government.

Gov. Mills declared a state of emergency, giving her almost dictatorial powers. Her major announcement received routine news coverage on local stations. Interrupting regular broadcasts for her full statement would have been justified.

The priorities of the federal government may differ from various state interests. Governors need to act to meet their own needs and not lean too much on the federal government. Trump now says they may be better at purchasing supplies than the federal government. They may be able to cooperate with one another, reducing costs and sharing experiences.

The Maine statute covering a declaration of emergency contains a major section on energy emergencies. The original version of that section was swiftly adopted by the Legislature when President Reagan abruptly ended almost the entire federal role.

The law grew out of actions previously considered by the NGA. At the time, Maine chaired the NGA energy committee (disclosure: I represented the State.) and focused its attention on energy emergency planning. The NGA could learn from that experience to promote state health emergency planning.

The American political system is deeply divided. No matter what happens in November, bitter conflict is likely to survive, undercutting federal action. Most people recognize that the post-coronavirus world will be different. Part of the change may be an increased state role.

The coronavirus reaction, with a large part of the responsibility finally coming back to the states, is a message that individual states, with the NGA as their forum, need to adjust. They should expect to meet public needs and priorities increasingly on their own.

State referendums increase direct democracy, making National Popular Vote more likely

Gordon L. Weil

Last week, Maine held a referendum on vaccinations and is likely to have another statewide, popular vote this year.

The National Popular Vote is gaining momentum and could lead to a majority of all American voters having a direct role in picking the president in 2024.

Democracy comes in two styles: direct and representative.

The U.S. has been a representative democracy from the outset. That's what the concept of a "republic" meant to the drafters of the Constitution. They worried that the citizens might be enflamed by momentary passions and make unwise decisions, while their representatives would be more careful.

But states could go their own way. Some already had direct democracy in the form of the Town Meeting in which the voters of a New England town act as its legislature. It has survived and, in Maine, the Town Meeting season is just getting under way.

Gradually, the U.S has been moving toward greater direct democracy. Almost all states use referendums proposed by legislatures to allow the people to make decisions. Many states also allow initiatives in which people can propose laws or try to veto laws passed by their legislatures. In Maine, initiatives greatly exceed pure referendums.

Referendum and initiative reflect the growth of popular democracy. The rules adopted by the founders have been changed. The Constitution now requires direct election of U.S. senators rather than their selection by state legislatures. The right to vote was expanded to include members of all races, women, and young Americans.

For the first time, the entire country might find itself able to act through direct democracy. Electing the president by a majority vote of the entire country could replace the current state-by-state voting for president. Its adoption depends on favorable action by as few as seven more states, including Maine, where it nearly passed.

Meanwhile, state referendums are increasing. In Maine, six petitions are now authorized for circulation and possible placement on the ballot in addition to the disputed CMP Corridor veto, which has been found to have sufficient signatures.

There's some opposition to more popular democracy. Critics believe the issues are too complicated for a simple up-or-down vote by average citizens. That means the Legislature may second-guess a popular decision. That could sound like continued distrust of average people.

But it is likely that many legislators don't know the details of the laws they pass. Do members of Congress understand the terms of a 1,000 page tax law? Do Maine legislators know all the line items of the state budget? Lawmaking is left to a few legislators and staffers, distant from even representative democracy.

Occasionally, a referendum becomes necessary when the Legislature cannot decide on an issue, so it passes the buck. It has sent matters, ranging from a Lewiston casino proposal (disapproved) to increasing the minimum wage (approved), out to the voters.

The only country where popular democracy is the normal way of doing much government business is Switzerland. People there vote several times a year on specific proposals. Recently they have considered federal taxing powers and allowing insurance companies to use private detectives. Both passed.

But there is a caution. The recent UK referendum on Brexit, held in a country with no tradition of direct democracy, left the country unable to reconsider its decision as more facts became known.

The system should permit a change in popular thinking, based on new facts. The people should have the possibility of a new vote, either through elections or a new referendum.

Some critics say that it is too easy to get an initiative on the ballot. In Maine, the number of petition signers depends on the number of people who voted for governor. The state has high turnouts, so the number seems reasonable, though it could be tied to presidential elections.

Another aspect of the issue is geographical distribution. Should a certain percentage of the voters in each congressional district be required to launch an initiative or pass it? No such a requirement exists for votes of the Legislature, so why should it apply to the voters, the ultimate legislature?

States with the Town Meeting form of government should be comfortable with popular legislating. Where jurisdictions are small, like Switzerland or Maine, popular democracy can work.

Popular democracy results from a better informed electorate, thanks to wider access to the media. And it ensures the principle of one-person, one-vote. Increased use by states is likely to continue.

With a national forum having been created by the media and statewide direct elections now widely accepted and used, a national presidential popular election may also make sense. Its time seems to be coming.

GOP pushes Ukraine issue against Biden, seeking to shield Trump

Gordon L. Weil

With former Vice President Joe Biden as the likely Democratic opponent of President Trump in November, Trump and the Republicans will renew efforts to discredit him over the Burisma-Ukraine-Biden issue.

They will insist that Biden had a Ukraine prosecutor removed to protect Burisma, an energy company being investigated for corruption. He supposedly wanted to shield his son Hunter, a man with no apparently relevant qualifications, who was on Burisma's board.

Trump hopes to undermine confidence in Joe Biden among American voters. Even if the charge can't be proved but can be kept alive until November, Republicans believe it will weaken Biden. Trump previously thought the mere Ukraine announcement of a Burisma-Biden investigation could undermine Biden.

During the impeachment proceedings, there was some bipartisan agreement that Trump had tried improperly to force Ukraine to make such an announcement. But some Senate Republicans concluded that his actions, even if objectionable, were not harmful enough to merit his removal from office.

Voters will need to make their own decision, if the GOP keeps the issue alive.

Ukraine is famous for its corruption. In the Burisma case, it appeared that a government official who also owned the company directed major contracts to it. He ultimately fled the country.

The Burisma deals were investigated in Ukraine and reviewed in the U.K. Lacking good evidence, no charges were brought.

After the questionable deals had been completed, Burisma appointed Hunter Biden to its board at a substantial pay level. It seemed obvious that the company wanted to improve its image with the U.S. by having the Vice President's son on the board.

The apparent lack of solid evidence against it, its role in the energy trade and the Biden name helped it achieve its objective. It was able to establish at least one important business relationship in the U.S.

All of this was taking place against a backdrop of efforts, sometimes half-hearted, to reduce corruption in Ukraine. Such efforts were vital to convince the U.S. and others providing financial help to the country that their aid would not drained by corrupt officials.

The chief Ukraine prosecutor was Victor Shokin. He did not pursue an investigation of the Burisma deals. He was also notoriously corrupt, leading his chief deputy to condemn him and quit. Eventually he was forced to resign after strong public protests.

As Vice President, Joe Biden had warned the Ukraine president that the U.S. would not provide a promised $1 billion in aid unless Shokin were fired. It is this action that Trump claims was motivated by Biden's desire to protect his son from investigation.

If true, the Vice President had used his position and American public funds to cause the ouster of a man investigating his son, which would be severely damaging to the Democratic candidate.

Did Biden cause Shokin to be fired to protect his son?

Shokin was not investigating Burisma. Shokin was not investigating Hunter Biden, especially because the alleged corruption took place before he joined the board. Joe Biden acted publicly to oust Shokin (that's how Trump knew), followed announced American policy and cooperated with other countries and international organizations.

While no father can control the actions of an adult child, Joe Biden erred in ignoring Hunter's joining the Burisma board. It is impossible to believe that Hunter's job was unrelated to his father's position.

Instead of keeping hands off, the Vice President should have asked his son to resign, because his job at least appeared improper. If Hunter had refused, the Vice President should have prepared an affidavit stating that he had tried to have Hunter resign and filed it with a third party.

The Republicans will not let go of this issue, which they created, so long as it can produce a political effect. It draws attention away from Trump's attempt to pressure Ukraine. It could continue for the length of the campaign.

Joe Biden alone can do something about the issue, if the GOP won't drop it.

If there is a Senate investigation, he should cooperate with it. He needs to document the events that refute Trump's claims and admit he erred in not trying to induce Hunter to resign. He can rightfully concede that he let his affection for his son take precedence.

He cannot look either defensive or like he is covering up. This is all the more important, because Burisma and Joe Biden himself are now being formally reviewed in Ukraine.

Only if Biden gets off the defensive, keeps after Trump's own Ukraine gambit and takes charge of the conversation can Ukraine be kept from becoming a persistent election issue.

No federal terms limits; Collins runs for record fifth term

Gordon L. Weil

Term limits don't work.

The alternative, defeat by the voters, doesn't work that well either.

In either case, elected officials hold their offices for long terms. They have better name recognition than their challengers, can usually raise more money and know how to use incumbency to their benefit.

Familiarity with office holders can give voters confidence they know what their votes will produce. Challengers must embody some risk, because how they will reform remains to be seen.

In Maine, term limits apply to state offices – governor, legislators and constitutional officials like the attorney general or secretary of state. The general rule is eight years and out.

But the reverse also seems to be true – an eight-year ticket to office – if the incumbent wants to keep the seat.

Since the advent of the four-year term of governor, no incumbent who sought reelection has been denied a second term. One governor (James Longley) did not seek reelection and another (Clinton Clawson) died in office.

The original purpose of legislative term limits was to end the almost endless tenure of some members. The prime target for some legislators was John Martin, the Aroostook Democrat who is the longest-serving legislator in state history.

The problem with Maine term limits is that they only ban consecutive terms in a single office. Take Martin. He has served three separate periods in the House plus breaking the string with eight years in the Senate. Other legislators skip a term and start a new eight-year run.

The same system appears to attract former Gov. Paul LePage. He served two four-year terms and left office. He now talks about running again in 2024.

The state term-limit system is weak, but there is no federal system. States themselves cannot impose term limits on federal offices. That would require federal action, possibly a constitutional amendment.

In 1994 Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley of Washington successfully defeated in court his state's attempt to term limit federal officials. Republican George Nethercutt, who supported term limits, promised to serve only three terms and upset Foley.

Holding office had proved seductive for Nethercutt. He served five terms. But when he left the House to run for the Senate, his broken promise helped defeat him.

Since Margaret Chase Smith was a Maine senator, the state has sent eight people to the U.S. Senate. Smith was defeated by Democrat Bill Hathaway when she tried for her fifth term and Hathaway then lost after a single term. Four Senators retired. Two, Republican Susan Collins and independent Angus King, now serve.

In 1996, when Collins first ran for the Senate, she said that she wanted to serve two terms. She is now running for her fifth term as did Smith, her role model who failed in the attempt.

Traditionally, Republicans have favored term limits and Democrats have opposed them. Once in power, Democrats have held onto legislative control at the federal level and in many states longer than the GOP. That could explain the partisan split on term limits, though the difference in tenure seems to be fading.

Democrats maintain that the voters should decide on terms. Republicans counter that, in practice, incumbents win. In the end, as Smith discovered, there may be another rule. As voters become familiar with their public officials, they may become more critical.

Obviously, Collins does not share her party's traditional attitude. By staying on office, she gains seniority and more influential committee appointments. Also, she uses her reputation as a moderate to gain leverage. She has been reported as saying, “I have a lot of power — I like that.”

One reason for term limits is to keep public officials closer to the public. Politicians are less likely to keep apart from their constituents when they know they must have a career outside of public office. This realization may keep them better attuned to popular sentiment.

One criticism of Collins is that she does not have much unstructured contact with Maine people. That may be a result of a long public life and relatively little of the life most of her constituents lead.

On the other side of the issue, long-term incumbents argue they can use their seniority to bring federal money home. And they gain independent expertise to develop their positions without overly relying on professional staff. Still, continually running for reelection means spending time on fundraising, not governing.

The question of term limits should be seen in a broad political context. If public sentiment determines it's time for a change, that view can sweep all other considerations aside, including term limits or the lack of them.