- I'm not talking about Trump's refusal to concede the 2020 election results. That's a Trump issue; it has nothing to do with the problems of our election system. But Trump's recent call for Republicans to take over the election process, to "nationalize" elections, goes to the heart of this issue's urgency, as does his earlier demand that red states redraw their districts to increase the number of safe Republican seats in Congress.
While elections are inherently partisan, their administration must be nonpartisan. Why? They must be nonpartisan in order to ensure that election results 1) reflect the true, accurate votes of all eligible voters, and 2) ensure that the "one man, one vote" principle is honored.
Current Problems
Redistricting: After each decennial census, each state is required to redraw its congressional districts in order to ensure that each district contains roughly the same number of people, thus ensuring the "one man, one vote" equal representation required by the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.
However, what if the numbers are similar but the redistricting is done to ensure a desired political outcome? Does that honor the one man, one vote principle?
In a process called "gerrymandering", the political party in power in a state controls the redistricting, and districts are drawn to protect the political power of that party. Both Republican and Democrat-controlled states engage in this process. Trump earlier this year called for red states to redraw their districts - outside the normal decennial process - to increase Republican safe seats. The Supreme Court has not intervened in such blatant partisan gerrymandering.
Another problem of gerrymandering is that the purpose is often to dilute the vote of Blacks and other people of color by drawing districts so that they do not constitute a majority and thus cannot elect their own representatives, whether to the House of Representatives or the state legislature. Sometimes race has been used positively to create minority-majority districts to protect the rights of Blacks under the Voting Rights Act.
However, the Supreme Court may rule soon that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not allow racially-drawn district maps for any reason-whether to create a minority-majority district or to dilute a minority's vote-because it is against the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Election Process: The government agency responsible for developing the rules governing elections is generally partisan.
As has been reported frequently in the press, Republican-controlled election boards have attempted to make it harder for groups assumed to provide Democratic votes to vote by restricting hours of polling places, restricting mail ballots and absentee ballots, and other means. And now Trump is calling for Republicans to take over the election process more directly in red states.
Campaign Financing: The issue of campaign financing and the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case are rarely discussed as affecting the one man, one vote principle. As a result of the Supreme Court's ruling, corporations have greatly increased the funds flowing into campaigns and influencing elections, thus increasing the costs of elections.
I would argue that if the concept of "one man, one vote" is to ensure equal representation, then it is critical that each person reaches their own decision about which candidate to vote for. Naturally, that position will often be influenced by family, friends, and peers, or what they learn in the media. And so, it will also be influenced by political advertising. That is as it should be and does not conflict with an individual's vote.
But when huge sums of money are spent on advertising to support a candidate, even if both sides have similar amounts of funds at their disposal, the individual voter is likely to be persuaded by advertising that is frequently false or misleading. Such advertising is not conducive to the reasoned debate the Founders had in mind when creating the representative democracy they envisioned.
Recommended Fixes
Redistricting: To avoid the problems discussed above, 21 states currently use a nonpartisan or bipartisan commission to redraw districts so that politics or the political outcome is not a determining factor. Every state should adopt this process.
With regard to protecting or creating Black majority districts, if that's the question, I think the answer should be no. The nation is far enough from the time of racially restrictive voting measures that there is no justifiable excuse to devise black majority districts. I am not saying that Blacks and Whites have achieved equality, just that in voting, there is no justification for creating Black majority districts on purpose.
All maps should be drawn strictly on the basis of geography and the number of people living in an area. If that ends up with a district that happens to be majority Black, or Democratic, or Republican, that's just the way it is.
Election Process:
Here again, the answer is to place the election process in the hands of a nonpartisan body. Many states already have independent boards that oversee the election process.
The United States is a representative democracy. There should be no rules that restrict an eligible citizen from voting in an election, so long as it is in a timely manner. Indeed, efforts should be made to make voting as easy as possible. I have long urged the United States to declare a national holiday for presidential elections. Many countries do this to remove any job-related impediment to voting.
Campaign Financing:
Given the Supreme Court's rulings overturning various efforts at campaign finance reform, the only option is publicly financed campaigns. Under this system, all candidates would have the same amount of money to spend. None would have the advantage of greater backing from corporations and the rich.
The other matter concerns the nature of ads. I have long argued that we need to have a "Truth in Politics" law. (See my article "The Need for a Truth in Politics Law - De-frauding American Politics.") The current amount of misinformation contained in political ads and statements is unheard of. How can citizens be expected to make reasoned decisions about their position on issues or candidates if they are constantly bombarded with misinformation posing as the truth?
In summary, the people, Congress, and the President should aim to make our representative democracy as representative as possible so that all voters feel their vote counts. This doesn't mean always being on the winning side; even if your candidate loses, you can still know that you participated and your vote counted.
Of course, this assumes that we've returned to America's former non-polarized state, where we felt that we were all Americans despite our differences and respected the results of elections, even if our candidate did not win. See my article, "What It Means to Be an American and Fly the Flag."
Bottom line: if we are to have fair, free, and reasoned elections, election oversight must be nonpartisan, and election campaigns must be monitored for misinformation.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
