Came In On Saturdays

Demagogue/Dictator Donald—“What a Scary Trump World This Would Be”   August 7, 2016

        “Sharknado 4” recently ran on our TV sets. What a scary world that portrayed.  Of course, earlier this summer, Demagogue/ Dictator Donald had his “Team Red” Convention nightmare in Cleveland. One “YUUGE” difference, “Sharknado” is fiction. The characters in it can be killed and revived sequel to sequel. However, if “the Donald” wins in 11/2016, our country and world will be unable to perform such feats. There will be no political and economic “do-overs” with a Trump presidency.  Demagogue/Dictator Donald has engaged in far too many political, “shark jumpings,” each one higher than the next. How can you top attacking the heroism of former POW, now Senator John McCain? How can you top “the Donald’s” calling for Russia, China, and other countries to hack into Hillary’s emails? Had any non-political/non-celebrity made these remarks, he/she could be looking at a treason prosecution. Demagogue Donald additionally had to trash 1970 Pakistani-Muslim immigrants, now ordinary American citizens, Khizr and Ghazala Khan.  In 2004, the Khans became Gold Star parents when they lost their son, Captain Humayun Khan. Captain Khan was fighting for the U.S. in Iraq. Captain Khan, also a U.S. citizen and a Muslim, was killed when a car blew up.  He told his troops to stand back while he went 10 steps forward to investigate the suspicious vehicle. Khan’s ultimate sacrifice saved the lives of his troops. American hero Khan was buried at Arlington National Cemetery and posthumously awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star.  On 7/28/2016, the last day of the Democratic National Convention, Mr. Khan spoke about his son’s heroism. During his emotional speech, Mr. Khan waved a copy of the U.S. Constitution.  He asked if Trump, who wants to exclude all Muslims from the U.S., had ever read it (CNN, Bradner, 7/31/16, MSNBC, 7/29/16, heavy.com/news). The Constitution, remember, guarantees freedom of religion and imposes no “religious tests (See Article VI, Amendment I).” Kudos, Mr. Khan! You said what most Democrats failed to state for many years-- the Constitution belongs to all of us, not just Tea Partiers, GOPers, or people who trace their ancestry to arriving on the “Mayflower.”

       Demagogue Donald had to have the “last word.” Instead of honoring the Khans and their son’s sacrifice, he attacked Mrs. Khan. He declared she just sat with her husband and said nothing because  her Muslim religion wouldn’t allow her as a woman to speak.  Trump added that he himself had made “sacrifices” by giving jobs to thousands of people. Mrs. Khan pushed back. She stated that the only reason she could not speak at the convention was because she could not hold herself together when discussing her son’s death. A rightful firestorm of outrage by millions of Americans followed (CNN Brandner, 7/31/6).

      And the Donald “shark jumpings” just keep on coming. On the 7/31/2016 ABC news program “This Week,” Trump told George Stephanopoulos that if he was president, Russia’s Vladimir Putin “would not send his forces into Ukraine.” Donald repeated several times that Putin was “not going into Ukraine.” When Stephanopoulos stated Putin was already in Ukraine, Trump kept fumbling. Trump said, “Putin’s there in a ‘certain way (NY Times, Sanger & Haberman, 7/31/16).’”  “In a certain way?” Is Putin in Ukraine or is he not? It’s like being “half pregnant,” an impossibility.  Jake Sullivan, Hillary’s chief policy adviser, pounced. He repeated what Hillary said at her Philadelphia convention, Donald lacks “temperamental fitness” for the presidency.  Many GOP national security heavy hitters are backing Hillary because of Donald’s complete lack of foreign policy knowledge and poor temperament. These include Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state and adviser to Reagan and H.W. Bush, and Brent Scowcroft, chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and adviser to three former GOP presidents.  Robert Kagan, former Reagan State Department aide and adviser to the McCain and Romney presidential campaigns, and Max Boot, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and another GOP presidential candidate adviser, are also “with her (Blake, Washington Post, 7/31/16).”

          In view of “the Donald’s” scary stands and lack of knowledge about domestic and foreign affairs, I have penned a musical ditty. It is based on the tune, “What a Wonderful World,” written by Sam Cooke, along with Lou Adler and Herb Alpert. This song was released in 1960 as a single record. Enjoy.

                What A Scary Trump World This Would Be (Sung to the Tune of Cooke, Adler, and Alpert’s “What a Wonderful World”)

                   Don’t Know Much About The World That’s True

                   But The Globe Is YUUGE With Oceans Blue

                   Don’t Know Much About John McCain

                   As A POW He Must Have Been Insane

                  But When The Tea Party Zealots Call

                  I Am There To Build A Wall

                 If In November You Elect Me

                What A Scary Trump World This Would Be

                  Don’t Know Much About Ukraine

                   Maybe It Is Next To Spain

                   When Friend Putin Calls Me From Afar

                   I Tell Him He Should Be The Next Czar

                   But Please Believe Me

                   If In November You Elect Me

                   What A Scary Trump World This Would Be

                   Muslims, Mexicans, Women I Won’t Take

                    I Say “No” To Making Gay Wedding Cakes

                    Education, Just Look And See

                   Get Your Trump University Degree

            If In November You Elect Me

           What A Scary Trump World This Would Be

   Sure, singing along, laughing at “the Donald” is fun. However, it is NOT enough.  Remember, as President Obama powerfully stated, “Just don’t boo Donald. Vote!” Vote, vote, vote in droves to keep this scary Trump world out of the White House.

 Demagogue Donald's Judge William Pryor-- It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!   May 29, 2016

      Too many Democrats just don't get it. They don't get that now is the time to join forces and fight the demagogic, shoot-from-the hip, not-qualified to be President Donald. Instead, too many members of the party that call themselves "reality based" don't get that turnout with unity is everything. Initially, the GOP resembled wildcats in a circus cage mauling each other. However, once "the Donald" became the nominee, 80% of the rank-and-file "Team Red" members are doing what they always do-- falling in line to support this ignorant loose cannon because he has an "R" after his name. Too many Democrats are going in the opposite direction. These Dems. don't get mathematics and do not understand that Hillary, a strong progressive, has a  numerical lock on the nomination. Although about 72% of Sen. Sanders followers will vote for Hillary in 11/2016, (NYTimes/CBS News Poll 5/13-5/17/16) a "Bernie or Bust" gang are doing everything they can to destroy her. Sen. Sanders himself refused to really crack down on his violent "Berners" at the 5/13/2016 weekend Nevada state convention. Instead, he spoke about going after the "unfair" Democratic "establishment," 1960's radical talk, infuriating many Democrats (See CNN, Raju, 5/17/16). IMHO, Sanders followers take their cues from the very top. Sanders himself indicates that he is willing to "hurt" Hillary in any way he can to seize the nomination. He hopes to capitalize on any late Clinton stumbles or any damage to her candidacy whether by scandals or by Trump himself. Sanders "claims" he does not want Donald to win in 11/2016. However, his advisers and allies say he is willing to do "some harm" to Mrs. Clinton "in the shorter term" if it means he can capture a majority of the 475 pledged delegates at stake in the 6/07/2016 Calif. primary. Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Sanders, stated the campaign did not think his attacks would help Trump "in the long run." He added Sanders' team was "not thinking about" the possibility that they could help derail Hillary from becoming president. Jeff Weaver, another top Sanders aide, is not at all interested in Democratic unity (NY Times, Healy, Alcindor, & Peters, 5/18/16).

     On what planet does "Team Sanders" live? Do they recall history? The violent actions in Nevada and at other rallies can easily translate into similar demonstrations at the 7/25-7/28/2016 Philadelphia Democratic convention. Remember the Chicago, 1968 convention riots by Democratic protestors? They cost Dem. Hubert Humphrey the election, gave us Nixon, and nearly a quarter-century of GOP presidential rule. The Sanders team wants to repeal the horrible 5-4 Citizens United Supreme Court opinion that allowed nearly unlimited campaign spending by Koch Brothers and Friends. Hillary and every Democrat also want to have that decision overruled. The best way to do that? Elect a Democratic president who will have the ability to fill Scalia's and probably several other Justices' seats. A progressive High Court would overturn that decision. Sanders' supporters, along with the rest of us, must get what every GOPer does. In Campaign 2016, it's the Supreme Court, stupid! 

       On 5/18/2016, "the Donald" gave the country a list of 11 judges he would consider nominating to fill Scalia's seat. He called these justices "representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value." Trump previously said that in selecting these judges he would seek guidance from conservative groups such as the Federalist Society, an outfit Scalia helped establish, and the Heritage Foundation. Both of these organizations have been funded by Koch money (Mayer, "Dark Money," "Scalia, A Court Of One," Murphy, SourceWatch). American University Law Professor Steve Vladeck called Donald's list "red meat to conservatives." He said the people on the list could "reasonably be expected to follow in Scalia's footsteps." Heritage Foundation John Malcolm labeled Trump's selections "excellent." Sen. Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.) called Trump's judicial list "impressive." Grassley is currently blocking any hearings on Pres. Obama's super-qualified nominee Judge Merrick Garland. Grassley and his fellow GOPers are waiting for Trump to win in 11/2016 and replace Scalia with another right-winger (CNN, Diamond, 5/18/16). Garland, according to a measure of judicial ideology developed by four political scientists, is close to liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Before Kagan joined the High Court, she was Obama's Solicitor General who unsuccessfully argued against overturning campaign spending reforms in the "Citizens United" case (Toobin, "The Oath"). Let's look at Judge William Pryor, Jr., the most outspoken conservative on Demagogue Donald's list (Savage, D. LA Times, 5/18/16). Right after Scalia's death, Donald first mentioned Pryor's name as a replacement (CNN Diamond, 5/18/16).

       William Holcombe Pryor Jr. (54) presently sits as a Federal Judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The 11th Circuit hears appeals from several Federal District Courts in the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Mobile, Ala. native Pryor attended a Catholic high school and received his undergraduate degree in 1984 from Northeast Louisiana University. He received a 1987 law degree from Tulane University. He was editor-in-chief of Tulane's Law Review. Pryor was a charter member of the Tulane Federalist Society. From 1987-1988, Pryor served as a law clerk on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. From 1988-1995, Pryor had a private litigation practice in Birmingham, Ala. He also served as an adjunct law professor of admiralty law at Samford University's Cumberland Law School from 1989-1995. Pryor currently teaches federal jurisdiction at the Univ. of Ala. Law School and statutory interpretation at Cumberland Law (Federalist Society bio., Univ. of Ala., "Faculty Page," Cumberland School of Law, "Adjunct Faculty Page").

        From 1995-1997, Pryor served as Ala.'s deputy attorney general. He was appointed Ala.'s Attorney General in 1997. He was elected Atty. General in 1998 and re-elected in 2002 with nearly 59% of the vote (Federalist Society bio.). As Attorney General, Pryor rejected reopening the case of Anthony Ray Hinton after his defense lawyers presented new evidence in his favor. Hinton spent nearly 30 years on Death Row before the U.S. Supreme Court vacated his conviction. News organizations and racial justice groups strongly criticized Pryor's stance (Liptak, NY Times, 2/24/03, brownwatch.squarespace.com, 4/05/15, "Birmingham News," Whitmire, 4/03/15).  Pryor has always been anti-choice. As Ala. Atty. General, Pryor denounced the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. He stated this 1973 ruling "manufactured a constitutional right to murder an unborn child." He called Roe, "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law (NY Times, Rappeport & Savage, C., 5/18/18, People For The American Way, pfaw.org, LA Times, Savage, D., 5/18/16)." Pryor is a protege of Ala. GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions. Sessions was denied a federal judgeship under Reagan because of his poor civil rights record. Sessions said he "thought the Ku Klux Klan was all right until he learned members smoked marijuana (LA Times, Savage D., "Media Matters," Schulman & Allison, 7/14/09)." It's the Supreme Court, stupid.

       On 4/09/2003, W nominated Republican Pryor to fill an 11th Circuit vacancy. Democrats blocked his confirmation because of his abortion views and because he had referred to the Supreme Court Justices as "nine octogenarian lawyers" when they delayed a 2000 Ala. execution ("Right Wing Justice," Schwartz, H., gpo.gov/fdsys). When Democrats filibustered Pryor, W put Pryor on the 11th Circuit bench on 2/20/2004 as a recess appointment. W's action bypassed the Senate. Pryor's recess term would have lasted until the end of 2006, had he not eventually been confirmed. In a "compromise deal" made by Sen. GOPers and Democrats, Pryor, along with two other W nominees, was confirmed to the bench by a 53-45 vote and sworn in on 6/20/2005 (Colvin, J., AP ).

         There are more Pryor judicial "gems." As Ala. Atty. General, Pryor filed an amicus/ supporting brief in the Supreme Court arguing for upholding the Texas anti-gay criminal statute (Lawrence v. Texas). In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court struck down this anti-gay law. Dissenters, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas echoed Pryor's amicus argument that gay conduct "would logically extend to prostitution, adultery, incest, and bestiality (Schwartz, "Right Wing Justice)." In 2005, the advocacy group Lambda Legal called Pryor the "most demonstrably anti-gay judicial nominee in recent memory." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper described Pryor as a "right wing zealot" and "the perfect Christian Right extremist (LA Times, Savage, D., 5/18/16, Schwartz)." It's the Supreme Court, stupid.

          Pryor was the only Attorney General to argue for striking down the Violence Against Women Act. Pryor called the electric chair a "humane'' method of execution, and stated that innocent people were not executed in Alabama. In one case, a prisoner was twice handcuffed to an outdoor hitching post with his arms raised above his shoulders for many hours. He was later forced to remove his shirt and stand in the hot sun all day. Pryor argued these actions were not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court called such unconstitutionality "so obvious," that it should have been clear even to a non-lawyer (Schwartz, Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 [2002]). Pryor attacked the Fla. Supreme Court for its opinion allowing a recount in the Bush v. Gore case. Pryor was delighted with the Supreme Court's 5-4 reversal of the Fla. Supreme Court, giving W the Presidency. Pryor wanted W to have a "full appreciation of the judiciary and judicial selections so we can have 'no more appointments like Justice Souter (H.W.'s moderate pro-choice nominee who dissented in the Bush v. Gore opinion).'" Pryor argued against federal enforcement of civil rights laws, worker protection, and environmental regulation. He supported tobacco and gun industries against lawsuits by sate attorneys general. Pryor testified in Congress against the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court, in the 5-4 reactionary Shelby v. Holder decision, agreed with Pryor when it gutted a key portion of that law. Scalia was part of that Roberts' Court majority. The NY Times concluded Pryor had turned his Atty. General's office into a "taxpayer -financed right-wing law firm (Schwartz, "Right Wing Justice")." One reporter called Pryor, "a B-52 candidate, if you will-- who has spent his career flying high, carpet bombing the landscape with conservative views on federalism, abortion, church state separation and a host of crime and punishment issues (pfaw.org/press-releases /2003)." 

             Demagogue Donald has said it all. "B-52" Pryor is his ideal Supreme Court Justice. Sen. Sanders' clique of purist supporters must stop uttering "I win or stay home in November" talk now. They must end their harassment and violence against fellow Democrats. Violence and threats are for Tea Partiers and Demagogue Donald, not "Team Blue." Again, Sanders can not win the nomination. We must all unite ASAP behind Hillary. The numbers and the demographics favor the Democrats, but only if we vote in droves. The polls are presently too close in Hillary's race against Demagogue Donald. Again, again, and again, in Campaign 2016, it's the Supreme Court, stupid. "Team Blue" needs to keep the Oval Office and take back the Senate to make sure Obama's legacy is upheld by the High Court.      

Independent Redistricting Triumphs Over Scalia’s Constitutional “Jiggery–Pokery”  July 9, 2015

        Poor Supreme Court Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia.  Opera buff Scalia should now sing tragic arias in the SCOTUS’ (Supreme Court of the United States’) marble chamber. The end of the High Court’s 2014-2015 term has dealt several blows to his mantra that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its “plain” literal meaning, “supposedly” the way its 1787 framers would (unless, as in Bush v. Gore and other cases, this interpretation interferes with Scalia’s GOP “principles”{See, Dershowitz, “Supreme Injustice”}). In its 6/25/2015 King v. Burwell decision, the High Court, with conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and this time Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined the four liberals in voting to keep Obamacare viable. In King v. Burwell, the 6-3 majority, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them.” The majority correctly stated that while the few words buried deeply in this 900 page law about giving subsidies only to “exchanges established by the State,” (not federal ones), may seem plain “when viewed in isolation,” such a reading turns out to be “untenable in light of (the statute) as a whole.” Had SCOTUS ruled for the conservative challengers, millions of Americans would have lost their ability to buy health insurance and the law would, as Roberts noted, have gone into a “death spiral (Opinion of the Court, NY Times Editorial, 6/25/15).” Scalia’s dissent? Scalia, the master of Court sarcasm and vivid phraseology (Liptak, NY Times, 1/19/15), did not disappoint. He called the health care law “SCOTUScare” and the majority’s interpretation “jiggery-pokery.” IMHO, Scalia is auditioning for Harry Potter sequels. He is reliving his high school drama days (See “Scalia, A Court Of One,” Murphy, B., CNN, de Vogue & Diamond, 6/25/15).

          And on 6/26/2015, in a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, SCOTUS legalized same-sex marriage throughout the nation. Scalia’s dissent? He called this decision a “judicial Putsch,” a reference to the Nazi Party’s failed 1920’s original coup against the then Weimar Republic. Scalia attacked Kennedy’s opinion as “pretentious, egotistic, and incoherent,” not aiding Court collegiality. Incoherent Scalia babbled that even the nearest “hippie” would find the majority’s “freedom of intimacy ‘abridged’ rather than expanded by marriage.” Scalia declared he would “hide his head in a bag” rather than join in this “fortune cookie reasoning.” Wow!

         On 6/29/2015, the last day of SCOTUS’ term, Scalia landed on the short end of another 5-4 decision. He again argued for a literal Constitutional reading. In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, a decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined both by fellow liberals Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and conservative Kennedy, the Court upheld Proposition 106. In 2000, Az. voters passed Proposition 106. This initiative created Arizona’s Independent Redistricting Commission in order to remove legislators’ bias from the congressional redistricting process. This Az. commission is composed of five members, two chosen by GOP lawmakers, two by Democratic lawmakers, and the fifth picked by the other four. Arizona GOP legislators complained the commission’s latest efforts favored Democrats. The GOP-led Ariz. legislature sued, claiming the voters could not strip elected lawmakers of their power to draw district lines (Liptak, NY Times, 6/29/15, Reiss, LA Times, 6/29/15). Following the 2010 census, the redistricting commission redrew Arizona’s congressional districts without preference to political partisanship. The Az. Republican Party was left with fewer safe congressional districts. Az. GOPers claimed this voter reform was unconstitutional. Az. GOPers argued about the meaning of a section of the Constitution’s Article One, the clause governing rules concerning Congressional elections. Article I, Section 4 states:

           “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the ‘Legislature’ thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

            Az. GOPers contended that under the Constitution’s Article 1 Section 4, the people, using a ballot initiative, don’t count as “legislators.” According to Az. Republicans, the Constitution intended only for the “elected Legislature” to set rules (See Reiss, LA Times). A federal three-judge panel majority ruled for the commission. It stated the Constitution’s election clause (Art. I, Sec. 4) “does not prohibit a state from vesting the power to conduct redistricting elsewhere within its legislative powers (NY Times, Liptak, 3/02/15).”At the 3/02/2015 Supreme Court oral arguments, Justice Kennedy seemed to be joining Justice Scalia in going against the independent Az. Commission. Commentators felt the Az. GOP would win. Kennedy stated he believed a constitutional amendment was needed to put redistricting in a commission’s hands, not a voter referendum. Justice Scalia led the charge against the independent commission. He argued that every other use of the word “legislature” in the Constitution referred to a “representative body rather than state voters.” The commission’s attorney argued that old dictionaries, including Noah Webster’s and Samuel Johnson’s, supported his viewpoint. Scalia, normally a fan of using old dictionaries to interpret the plain meaning of laws, dismissed this argument (NY Times, Liptak, See Murphy, “Scalia A Court Of One”).”

          In a surprise turn, Kennedy joined Justice Ginsburg. Ginsburg aptly wrote, “The Framers may not have imagined the modern initiative process in which the people’s legislative power is coextensive with the state legislature’s authority, but the invention of the initiative was in full harmony with the Constitution’s conception of the people as the font of governmental power (Opinion, Reiss, LA Times).” What caused Kennedy’s change?  Perhaps, it was Scalia’s acidic hostility to Kennedy’s views legalizing same-sex marriage in the Obergefell v. Hodges case. Kennedy often stands strongly for stare decisis. Stare decisis is a legal doctrine stating that long held or deeply engrained case law should generally stand. We saw Kennedy’s use of stare decisis in his upholding Roe v. Wade in the 1992 Casey decision. Although Kennedy voted in 2012 against the constitutionality of the health care law, he voted to keep this law intact in the 6/25/2015 King v. Burwell case. In the Casey abortion case, had he overturned Roe, millions of women would have lost the right to choose. Similarly, overturning federal health care subsidies would have denied millions of Americans health care insurance, now a successful working law of the land. Chaos would have resulted.

         Had Kennedy ruled against the Az. independent commission, he would have adopted what election law expert Richard Hasen called “a mindless literal reading” of a constitutional provision, Scalia’s constricted judicial view. Independent election commissions in Arizona, California, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, and New Jersey could have been affected (LA Times, Savage, D., 6/29/15). Twenty-three states now allow voter passage of initiatives. The initiative, part of the early 20^th-Century Progressives reform movement for direct democracy, was aimed at bypassing state legislatures bought by special interests. The general power of the initiative could also have been endangered by the cramped-Scalia/Az. GOP Constitutional interpretation (See Reiss, LA Times). Scalia’s dissent? He called the interpretation of “legislature” “outrageously wrong, so utterly devoid of textual or historic support (NY Times, Liptak, 6/29/15).” Dissenting Chief Justice Roberts accused the majority of performing a “magic trick” by interpreting the Constitution “to allow the people, not the Legislature, to set the rules for electing members of Congress (Savage, LA Times, 6/29/15).” Roberts’ “magic trick” joins Scalia’s “jiggery-pokery” in the SCOTUS Circus Circus/Harry Potter show.

            The Az. redistricting case did not get the attention of the health care and gay marriage opinions. However, to use VP Joe Biden’s phrase, it is a “big F-ing deal.” Despite what many may think, redistricting is not some inside baseball game played for amusement by state legislative policy wonks. The GOP has long understood the vital importance of drawing as many state and federal districts as possible containing overwhelming numbers of Republican voters. As early as the 1970’s, GOP ideologue Newt Gingrich and his strategists realized, according to “The Nation,” that state legislative elections were “a massive chess game.” Should the GOP prevail, it could lock in the ability to shape an unbeatable House majority. In Gingrich’s words, “Redistricting is everything.” The Constitution’s Article I, Section 2 requires a national census to take place every ten years to be used to determine the number of House seats in each state. After the GOP 2010 midterm tsunami, which gave the majority of state legislatures to the GOP, many vulnerable House GOPers elected in 2010 were shored up by gerrymandering, or the partisan manipulation of district boundaries.  In 2012, Democrats had high turn out. They re-elected Obama and increased their then Senate majority. Democrats also took 50.5 % of all major party votes cast for the House, 1.4 million more votes than the Republicans. However, because of GOP state legislative gerrymandering, Democrats won just 46.2 % of all House seats and failed to retake that chamber. In poor “Blue” turn-out 2014, Democrats won 47.1% of all major House party votes and took just 43.2% of all seats. Democrats then fell further behind in trying to recapture the House (In 2016, Democrats need to flip a net 30 seats to retake the House. The non-partisan Cook Report presently sees them taking no more than 15.).With GOP- gerrymandered maps, Democrats, therefore, consistently receive about 4% fewer seats (Wash. Post, Cillizza, 6/29/15, Harwood, NY Times, 7/05/15). In Ohio, Fla., and Michigan, for starters, GOPers have lopsided House delegations.

            Justice Ginsburg’s opinion boldly called Prop.106,“an endeavor by Arizona voters to address the problem of partisan gerrymandering –the drawing of legislative district lines to subordinate adherents of one political party and entrench a rival party in power (Liptak, NY Times, 6/29/2015).” This SCOTUS decision has given Democrats and good government advocates a powerful weapon for long-term reform that will help break up partisan gridlock. Democrats and government reformers must now get initiatives on the ballot in states which allow that process to create Arizona and Calif. type non-partisan commissions. Such commissions will draw fair maps truly representing state populations. Democrats must target not only Michigan, Ohio, and Fla., states Obama twice won, but also “Red” Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and even Utah. By having fair maps in these states alone, Democrats stand to gain anywhere from 9-17 seats after the 2020 census (See interactive maps under Wolf, Kos Elections, 6/29/15). Non-partisan redistricting measures are very popular. Population trends generally favor “Team Blue.” Former gubernatorial candidate and Michigan Congressman /state legislator Mark Schauer will head the effort over the next three election cycles to put more Democrats in control of the redistricting process in many states (Detroit Free Press, Gray, K. 2/19/15). Former Calif. Democratic Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher will try to get Democrats, Republicans, and good-government endorsements for non-partisan redistricting. She plans to help raise the millions of dollars needed for such action (Decker, C., LA Times, 7/05/15). We must strongly support Schauer and Tauscher.