adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Something *very* important for our politics happened on Tuesday – CNN

Published

 on


The Republican governor announced that via executive order he had created an independent commission he will task with redrawing the state’s congressional and legislative lines following the decennial reapportionment later this year. Known as the Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission, the nine-person group will include three Democrats, three Republicans and three independents.
“This commission is the first of its kind in the long history of our state,” Hogan said in making the announcement. “Unlike the partisan, backdoor manner in which our state’s political power brokers have conducted the state’s redistricting process, we want to make sure that this time the people of Maryland are actually the ones drawing these lines—not the politicians or the party bosses.”
This may seem to you, at first glance, to be a rather minor deal. Only the most ardent political junkies closely follow the re-shuffling and re-drawing of legislative and congressional districts that follow the decennial census. (Guilty, your honor!)
But simply because it’s utterly inside baseball doesn’t mean it isn’t important. In fact, like many things that the general public either knows nothing about or has a decided lack of interest in, how these lines are drawn and by whom has an outsized impact on the sort of government we have — and what the motivations of our elected officials are.
For decades, the line-drawing process has fallen, in most states, to state legislators and governors. What that has meant, in the main, is that when Democrats control the state capitol and, therefore, the line-drawing process, they create districts that are as favorable as possible for their side. Ditto Republicans — except that GOP gains at the state level, particularly in the 2010 midterm elections, gave them more line-drawing control over more states and, therefore, considerably more power.
The strategy of both sides has been simple: Pack as many of the opposition party’s voters into as few districts in the state as possible while spreading out their own voters to make as many districts winnable for their side as they can. Innovations in redistricting software have made this slicing and dicing of people based on their party registration or past voting history an art form — allowing the line-drawers to literally go street by street when it comes to crafting new districts.
This has, of course, had unintended consequences. Maps drawn over the past two decades — by Democrats and Republicans — in places like North Carolina, Texas and yes, Maryland — have come under legal scrutiny for using political considerations as the sole motivator in creating legislative and congressional districts. Maps in which one party overreached have, occasionally, led to unpredictable results in which the party in power loses seats they expected to win because they tried to divide up their own voters among too many districts.
But these exceptions notwithstanding, the dominant trend produced by partisan politicians drawing the congressional district lines is this: The vast majority of members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, represent what we would call “safe” districts — meaning that their only chance of losing their job would be in a primary, not a general election.
In 1956, for example, less than 6 in 10 House incumbents won with 60% of the vote or more, according to Vital Statistics on Congress. By 2002, the first election after the 2001 nationwide redistricting, 85% of all House incumbents seeking reelection won with 60% or higher. In 2014 and 2016, that number hovered in the mid-to-high 70s before dipping to just 63% in the tumultuous 2018 midterm election.
The practical, political effect of this trend is simple: Members of Congress have little reason to demonstrate their ability to work across the partisan aisle and every reason to be as partisan and ideological as possible in hopes of staving off any sort of primary challenge.
Which leads to what we’ve seen on display in Washington over these last many years: Constant partisan bickering and brinksmanship over matters great and small; the constant threat of government shutdowns; and a government that can barely function as its founders designed it to do.
And yes, much of that gridlock — not all, but much — can be traced back to a political line-drawing process that rewards reflexive partisanship and punishes those who stray from absolute adherence to their party line.
Independent or bipartisan commissions to redraw the maps in states — as Hogan is trying to do in Maryland — work to reorient the incentive structure for members by creating districts that are far more competitive between the two parties in general elections.
Take Iowa, where since 1980, nonpartisan staff have drawn the legislative and congressional lines — and which is widely seen as the model for how redistricting aimed at decelerating partisanship and polarization should be done.
The state’s congressional districts have regularly changed hands between the parties, with Republicans winning two previously-held Democratic seats in the 2020 election. And generally speaking, three of the four districts in the state — the exception being the Republican-friendly 4th in western Iowa — are extremely competitive every two years. Check out the winning percentages for four incoming members of Congress in the state: 62%, 49%, 50% and 51.3%. In the state’s 2nd District, the Republican candidate leads the Democrat candidate by six — SIX! — votes.
While bipartisan — and independent — line-drawing commissions are on the rise in recent years, the majority of states in the country still rely on politicians to draw lines. And even under Hogan’s proposal, the state legislature would retain veto power over any congressional map that the independent committee produces.
But the step he is taking is still an important one. Until voters understand that the lines that govern who they can vote for are as important than the person who represents them, we are likely to be stuck in this same partisan morass in Washington.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Politics

Trump’s attorney argues Georgia election case should be dismissed. Here’s why it might not work – CNN

Published

 on


Trump’s attorney argues Georgia election case should be dismissed. Here’s why it might not work


02:33

– Source:
CNN

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

300x250x1
Continue Reading

Politics

Michael Taube: How a eulogy for a father made one political career — and perhaps another – National Post

Published

 on


The similarities between Caroline Mulroney’s eulogy for her father and Justin Trudeau’s homage to his ‘Papa’ were impossible to ignore

Article content

There were many heartfelt tributes to former prime minister Brian Mulroney during his state funeral at Montreal’s Notre-Dame Basilica on March 23. One that caught significant attention was the eulogy by his daughter, Caroline, a cabinet minister in Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government.

The legion of family, friends and political cohorts that day had a good laugh over a particular remark that Mulroney made. “Speeches were such a major part of his life,” she said, “that he told us that when it was his turn to go up to what he called that great political rally in the sky, he wanted us to bury him with his podium.”

Advertisement 2

Article content

Article content

Indeed, it’s a great line — and it rings true in every fibre of its being!

That’s not what struck me about Mulroney’s speech, however. Rather, it was the passionate words, raw emotion and cadence she employed when describing her late father. She had lived in his massive (and unavoidable) shadow. His formidable presence followed her in every step she took — but in a good way. What he specifically meant to her, the family and our country was mapped out on one of the biggest stages she’ll ever encounter in her life.

So much so, that one person sitting in the Basilica — who also gave a eulogy — may have felt, if but for a fleeting moment, that he was experiencing déjà vu: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. (We’ll get to him shortly.)

“There was a destiny attached to my father, that even in his youth, no one could deny,” Mulroney said in one poignant moment. “Even prime minister (John) Diefenbaker at the peak of his powers, wrote a letter to my grandfather, extolling his son’s potential after his first encounter with my dad.”

She continued, “My dad saw the world in a bigger way than most. His humanity defined him. Which is why he transcended politics and connected with people in a way that left an indelible mark on their hearts and souls. In our grief, our family is comforted and so grateful for the universal outpouring of affection and admiration for what my father meant to them and to Canada.”

Article content

Advertisement 3

Article content

Her concluding lines tugged at the heartstrings of one’s soul. “We are heartbroken by our loss. We adored him. I miss you daddy.”

It was a wonderful eulogy that her father — who I knew, admired and respected — would have been proud of. Words mattered to him. He loved language and prose, and mastered them to perfection. The art of writing, speaking and storytelling were gifts from God.

When I watched Mulroney speak at the state funeral of her beloved father, I was instantly reminded of Trudeau’s eulogy at the state funeral of his beloved father.

The man who would become Canada’s 23rd prime minister was a relatively unknown figure when he walked to the lectern on Oct. 4, 2000. There had been various images of him in the media, but he had largely avoided the spotlight. His father’s massive shadow and formidable presence, much like Caroline Mulroney’s father, was always there — but in a good way.

When Trudeau spoke that day, it was the biggest audience of his young life. He did extremely well. His speech was emotional, powerful and deeply personal.

“Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The very words convey so many things to so many people,” he said. “Statesman, intellectual, professor, adversary, outdoorsman, lawyer, journalist, author, prime minister. But more than anything, to me, he was dad. And what a dad. He loved us with the passion and the devotion that encompassed his life. He taught us to believe in ourselves, to stand up for ourselves, to know ourselves and to accept responsibility for ourselves. We knew we were the luckiest kids in the world. And we had done nothing to actually deserve it.”

Advertisement 4

Article content

Recommended from Editorial

  1. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney with his wife Mila and Mikhail Gorbachev, at 24 Sussex Drive on May 29, 1990.

    Michael Taube: From trade to personal liberties, Brian Mulroney stood for freedom

  2. Caroline Mulroney speaks during the state funeral of her father, late former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney at Notre-Dame Basilica in Montreal on March 23, 2024.

    ‘There was a destiny attached to my father’: Read Caroline Mulroney’s eulogy for Brian Mulroney

There’s also this passage which perfectly encapsulates Trudeau’s love for his father and what he believed he did for the nation. “My father’s fundamental belief never came from a textbook. It stemmed from his deep love for and faith in all Canadians and over the past few days, with every card, every rose, every tear, every wave and every pirouette, you returned his love … He left politics in ’84, but he came back for Meech, he came back for Charlottetown, he came back to remind us of who we are and what we’re all capable of.”

And finally, this concluding sentiment. “But he won’t be coming back any more. It’s all up to us — all of us — now. The woods are lovely, dark and deep. He has kept his promises and earned his sleep. Je t’aime, Papa.”

Mulroney and Trudeau, much like their fathers, are different people with different strengths, weaknesses and political ideologies. The similarities are equally impossible to ignore. Scions of two impressive public figures. Children who walk in the giant footsteps their fathers left behind. Two impressive eulogies at different points in their lives and careers that will be remembered forever.

There’s one other similarity that could be on the horizon. Trudeau used his eulogy to springboard into the public eye, politics and leadership. Mulroney is already in the public eye and politics. She unsuccessfully ran for the Ontario PC leadership in 2019, but didn’t have the presence, confidence or speaking ability that she did during her eulogy. That moment has finally arrived, and it’s up to her to use it as wisely as Trudeau did.

National Post

Article content

Comments

Join the Conversation

This Week in Flyers

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Holder bows out of politics ahead of election – Telegraph-Journal

Published

 on


Former cabinet minister is the latest Tory rebel to exit politics

Article content

Progressive Conservative stalwart Trevor Holder, the province’s longest-serving MLA in the legislature, is bowing out of politics, becoming the latest Tory rebel to make that call ahead of the provincial election.

Advertisement 2

Article content

In the legislature Thursday, Holder, who has served the Saint John riding of Portland-Simonds for the last 25 years and was a cabinet minister under three premiers, made the announcement, thanking all his colleagues “regardless of political stripe” who later rose in the House to give him a round of applause.

Article content

“All I ever wanted – along with all of you – was a chance to help make (New Brunswick) better than it already is,” said Holder, who described himself as a “north-end kid” from Saint John.

Holder didn’t make himself available to the media after his announcement. He also didn’t formally resign on Thursday, sending a note out to reporters that he “won’t be back in May” but hasn’t “set the official date yet” for his resignation.

News of his exit comes less than a year after Holder resigned as the province’s minister of post-secondary education, training and labour, citing the impact of Premier Blaine Higgs’s top-down leadership style on caucus decision-making.

Holder was the second minister to resign from cabinet last June amid Tory caucus infighting over changes to the province’s gender identity policy for public school students.

Fellow Saint John MLA and Tory stalwart Dorothy Shephard was the first to resign from cabinet last summer, giving up her post as minister of social development before announcing last week she won’t reoffer in the upcoming election this fall.

Shephard also cited Higgs’s leadership style in her decision to leave cabinet.

Article content

Advertisement 3

Article content

During his speech Thursday, Holder made a point to thank Higgs “for the conversations over the last number of days leading up to my decision here.”

Higgs later told media he didn’t know Holder’s exact plans for the future but knew the Saint John MLA had “opportunities.”

“He’s a great statesman in the legislature and certainly his care for his community is genuine,” the premier said.

When asked if he had addressed Holder’s concerns about caucus decision-making, Higgs said he thought so but acknowledged he’s “always struggled with things not getting done at a certain level of pace.”

“It’s rare if you ever come out of caucus or cabinet with unanimous decisions,” he said.

“There’s always a degree of differences, and that’s not going to change, but leadership requires real decisions and you’re not everything to everybody, so you do what you believe is right and you do with it conviction and you hope it’s just the right thing to do.”

Holder ‘a truly progressive conservative’: Coon

Both opposition leaders spoke glowingly of Holder’s commitment to provincial politics.

“He was a real asset to the legislature, he was a real pleasure to work with, so it’s a loss to see him leaving the legislative assembly,” Liberal leader Susan Holt told media Thursday.

That was echoed by Green leader David Coon.

“(Holder’s) very committed to improving our system of government and he’s made real contributions to doing so,” Coon said. “I’m sad to see him go. He’s truly a progressive conservative in the truest meaning of that term.”

Advertisement 4

Article content

In his 16-minute speech, Holder spoke of the importance of bipartisanship, describing his relationship with former Liberal cabinet minister Victor Boudreau.

They used to “tear each other” up in the House, Holder recalled, but “when I was in opposition, (Boudreau) helped me with my constituents, and when I was in government, I did my best to do the same for him – and this is how this legislature needs to work.”

First elected at the age of 25 in June 1999, Holder has won a total of six elections over the course of his 25-year provincial political career. He’s a former minister of environment and local government, tourism and parks, wellness, culture and sport, and tourism, heritage and culture. He also served as deputy speaker.

Holder thanked his wife Brenda Thursday, along with their two daughters, Margaret and Katherine, for their support over the course of his political career.

Holder’s and Shephard’s departure announcements are the latest in a string of changes within the Tory caucus ahead of the election.

In February, fellow Saint John colleague Arlene Dunn abruptly resigned from her ministerial and MLA duties. Meanwhile, colleagues Daniel Allain, Jeff Carr and Ross Wetmore – who were part of the Tory rebels who supported a Liberal motion on Policy 713 changes – have announced they won’t reoffer in the next election.

Wetmore had announced his retirement intentions before the Policy 713 kerfuffle.

Fellow rebel Andrea Anderson-Mason, MLA for Fundy-The Isles-Saint John West, has yet to announce her plans.

Article content

Comments

Join the Conversation

This Week in Flyers

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending