Friday News Roundup — September 27, 2019
Impeachment, and post-Impeachment; the Politics of Gerrymandering Reform; plus news you may have missed
Good Friday morning from Washington, D.C., where the week has been marked by historic events as the House begins formal impeachment proceedings against President Trump. Dan covered the historical context of impeachment for The Hill on Thursday morning, examining how past impeachments and today’s political dynamics suggest that, even with impeachment, the 2020 ballot box will render the ultimate verdict for President Trump. In this week’s roundup, Dan looks at what might unfold over the coming months, as well as what we need to think about in terms of fixing our politics. As we also look at fixing our politics, this week, Chris looks at how the political prospects at the state legislature level may be affecting momentum for gerrymandering reform.
This week at CSPC, we hosted another roundtable as part of our National Security Space Program. Building on the recommendations of our report, “Securing the Highest Ground,” this roundtable is beginning a follow-on conversation about the state of U.S. strategy in this ever-important, and increasingly vital, domain.
As always, we wrap our roundup with news stories that you may have missed.
Impeachment and What Comes After
Dan Mahaffee
When Democrats took control of the House in the 2018 election, I was often asked whether or not the Democrats would move quickly to impeach Trump. At the time, I believed such a move would be hasty. Democrats would have far too much to risk by impeachment. Given the pressure it would place on newly elected Democrats who represented districts carried by Trump in 2016, such a move would risk the majority — especially at a time when Democrats’ messaging on issues like healthcare, education, and gun control was resonating with educated suburban voters.
Speaker Pelosi had shared a similar caution, often saying that her job was to “represent the entire caucus.” Over the past two weeks, that calculus has changed. The allegations in the whistleblower’s report to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) have proven to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.
Here is what we know for certain, and we know it from the memorandum of the July 25th conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky — a memorandum (Telcon in White House parlance) declassified and released on President Trump’s own instructions. Immediately after Zelensky mentioned Ukraine’s desire to purchase additional U.S.-made Javelin anti-tank missiles, President Trump immediately asked Zelensky for a favor. Furthermore, this memo reflects the second of two calls to Zelensky, as President Trump also spoke with him in April. Already, House Democrats are pushing for further details about what may have been said in the first conversation.
We also now have the details of the complaint made by the whistleblower to the ICIG. For those in the Trump administration, the most concerning aspects are twofold. First, this report lays out all the members of the administration privy to the call to President Zelensky — officials who may also have spoken to the president in terms of the context of the call. Second, the whistleblower’s complaint suggests that the Trump administration has used a code word classification level server to store telcons from other calls with other world leaders. This suggests that there are other calls that the White House has felt require extra protection, as well as the fact that the telcon provided to Congress, and the American people, is not the full story of the July 25th Washington-Kyiv phone call.
That is what we know from the documents released from the White House itself, and that, to be quite fair, is all that anyone knows. Right now, there is a lot of punditry suggesting that impeachment will help or hurt their side — quite often, that prognostication depends on the leaning of the channel to which one tunes, or streams, or scrolls. However, impeachment is a jump into the unknown.
Historian and biographer Jon Meacham noted that impeachment arrives at the most tumultuous periods in American history. President Andrew Johnson escaped removal from office by just one vote in the Senate, as our politics were torn asunder over reconstruction and the fate of freed slaves. Though not formally impeached, as he resigned beforehand, President Nixon’s Watergate downfall came in an era marked by the trauma of the Vietnam War and the cultural sea change of the late 60’s and early 70’s. President Clinton’s impeachment would come at a time when the Baby Boomer generation was entering center stage on the political stage.
Today, American politics is at a similar crossroads. Where the divisions between left and right could be once charted in terms of differing philosophies and policies related to the size and role of government, today, the divisions between the parties reflect cultural, social, geographic, educational, and economic differences. Regardless of one’s feelings on President Trump or the merits of impeachment, the republic cannot endure in its current state. Across society, we have lost faith and trust in a range of institutions, including government.
While impeachment will only further the divisions in our body politic and consume the political oxygen over the coming months, we must begin to consider what comes after impeachment. Across the country, dissatisfaction with current politics has resulted in grassroots movements to reform our political system. Tired of the dysfunctional status quo, citizens across the country have channeled their dissatisfaction into movements for gerrymandering reform, open primaries, ranked choice voting, and many other efforts designed to reshape and renew politics.
So often, we hear the story of what Ben Franklin said when he asked whether the constitutional convention had resulted in a republic or a monarchy. His famous reply, “a republic, if you can keep it.” If the current state of our politics continues to divide us, empowering partisans while encouraging apathy, then we may very well lose the republic the Founders gave us. The coming months will be some of the most divisive and rancorous in American politics — whether it is a final chapter, or the prologue of a story of redemption, depends on our vision and willingness to fix the system.
The Politics of State Gerrymandering Reform
Chris Condon
This year, the Virginia General Assembly took the first step toward reforming redistricting in their state. In February, the body overwhelmingly passed a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit gerrymandering and create an independent commission to draw district lines. However, Virginia’s constitutional amendment process is purposefully difficult; the state legislature must pass the same amendment again next session, and the citizens must approve it in a referendum. If all of these criteria are fulfilled, the commonwealth’s constitution will include a strong rebuke of gerrymandering—unlike those of the surrounding states. What is interesting about this scenario is that Virginia’s legislature is controlled by Republicans, who are not necessarily friends of gerrymandering reform.
While one is tempted to believe that the GOP has signed on to reform out of the goodness of their own hearts, it is equally as likely that political factors are playing a part. Virginia has become a notoriously purple state, but the General Assembly reflects this now more than ever. In both the House of Delegates and the Senate, Republicans hold a razor-thin (one seat) majority, making their grasp on power especially tenuous in the current political climate. Virginia’s General Assembly elections are especially atypical because they occur in odd years, meaning that the next one will occur later this year rather than at the same time as U.S. congressional elections in 2020. If Democrats are able to capitalize on the president’s unpopularity enough to shake the GOP majority, the state’s government will be completely controlled by their party.
Ultimately, this is the climate that likely spurred Republican support for gerrymandering reform. Republicans have controlled the General Assembly for decades, and likewise have been in charge of drawing the state’s congressional districts after each decennial census. This gave them the opportunity to gerrymander the districts for their own gain, just as Democrats do in neighboring Maryland and other state legislatures do across the nation. Sensing the precarious political situation they are in this year, Republicans likely supported the establishment of an independent commission to avoid a hostile legislature controlling the redistricting process. Democrats, for their part, cannot be certain that they will capture the majority. Therefore, the uncertainty of both parties regarding control of the General Assembly next year created a perfect alignment of political incentives for reform.
The implications of this situation may seem limited to the Old Dominion, but the broader political climate may disprove this. Although Republicans control the vast majority of state legislatures around the country, there are multiple states which may prove difficult for the GOP to hold in the coming election.
The above map illustrates the strength of each party’s majorities in each respective state legislature. The dark red states, largely concentrated in the south and Great Plains, denote solid Republican majorities that are likely not subject to flipping in the next election. Blue states denote the same but for a Democratic majority, and purple indicates a state with divided control of the legislature. Pink, the most important for this purpose, are states where the Republican majority is relatively narrow — notice Virginia in this category.
However, there is another consideration that neutralizes this factor in some of the pink and purple states. Michigan and Arizona already draw their legislative districts using an independent commission; this makes their situations moot for the purpose of this analysis. Iowa, while it does not draw districts directly using a commission, has established an advisory commission which is independent and submits unalterable plans to the state legislature for an up or down vote. Sparsely populated Alaska has only one at-large congressional district, which leaves Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina as states that will potentially flip. Minnesota’s Republican Party may be the most likely to compromise, as they hold only a three-seat majority in the state senate. Virginia was discussed above, and the others are slightly safer for the GOP. In the event of another wave election, however, Republican majorities are not nearly large enough to protect against Democratic control next year.
In the grand scheme of things, it is impossible to know whether or not Democrats will be able to flip control of the above legislatures. Further, the only ones that have a major redistricting reform movement underway are Pennsylvania and Virginia, which are both considering major bills in their respective legislatures. Although there are not currently major reforms in the hopper in the other aforementioned states, perhaps the present political situation can act as a propellant for those in these communities who wish to ensure a fairer redistricting process after the 2020 census. As of now, much of the country will still be subject to the scourge of gerrymandering in the absence of a federal reform package, so time is of the essence for those who value political fairness.
News You May Have Missed
Senate Confirms New Labor Secretary
In a 53–44 vote this week, the United States Senate confirmed President Trump’s nominee to fill the position of departing Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. Eugene Scalia, the son of deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, was confirmed in a party-line vote that Senate Minority Leader Schumer called “disgraceful,” While Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander praised Scalia as a “steady hand” entering the administration. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) also decried the nominee, echoing the sentiment that his testimony before the HELP Committee was anti-worker and overly deferential to the president. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), famous for his friendliness to unions, pointed to Scalia’s record defending large corporations in his legal practice as evidence of his alleged friendliness to big business over workers.
Darrell Issa Announces Campaign to Unseat Hunter
Former Representative Darrell Issa of California announced a campaign to defeat fellow Republican Duncan Hunter in his bid for reelection in 2020. Hunter, who has been under federal investigation this term, is increasingly vulnerable. As one of the wealthiest members of Congress during his term in office, Rep. Issa begins the race with a sizeable war chest that he can leverage against an unpopular opponent. Although Issa retired from his old seat at the behest of the Republican Party, he is confident in his ability to win the race to represent the 50th congressional district, which is a neighbor of his old seat, the 49th district. Issa had been nominated by the president to head the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, but decided to jump ship after his confirmation stalled in the Senate.
U.S. and Japan Reach New Trade Agreement
After extensive negotiations, the United States and Japan have agreed to a reduction in tariffs in a new trade deal between governments. The agreement will lower tariffs on agricultural goods such as beef and pork, helping parts of President Trump’s constituency currently hampered by his trade war with China. Japan made the agreement largely because of the president’s threats to impose duties on Japanese automobile imports into the United States, which would damage the nation’s ability to sell in its largest market. Although negotiations hit multiple speed bumps, President Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced the completion of the deal at this week’s United Nations summit in New York.
Former French President Jacques Chirac Passes Away at 86
Known best in the United States for his opposition to the 2003 Iraq War — prompting the creation of “Freedom Fries” in the House cafeteria — former French President Jacques Chirac died at age 86. A larger-than-life figure in French politics in the mold of Charles de Gaulle and François Mitterand, Chirac was known as a figure who could bridge the right and the left, and he was a tireless advocate for further integration of the European Union into a “United Europe of States.” Vaulting into national prominence as Mayor of Paris, he would then serve as France’s Prime Minister from 1974–1976 and 1986–1988 before being twice elected to the presidency, a post he held from 1995 to 2007. While his later years and legacy would be tarnished by his conviction on corruption charges, many French remember him fondly for his willingness, à la mode française, to stand up to Washington and London.