Votes Worth Fighting For

To the Editor:

History repeats itself. A current example is the battle over redistricting in Texas set in the context of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration laid out a case for freedom from monarchical overreach. It asserted British colonists’ right to self-determination, through individual liberty and popular sovereignty. Rights are inalienable. No government can deny them, claims the Declaration: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The current mid-term redistricting battle in Texas tests the vibrancy of a democratic republic, which Benjamin Franklin said we have, as long as we can keep it. We are asked to weigh the merits of redistricting and opposition to it. An essential norm of U.S. citizens is that they don’t give up their right to self-government easily. Each vote, at all levels of government, is worth fighting for, so says President Trump, Cruz, Abbott, Paxton, House Democrats, other governors, legislators, and media commentators. So say letter writers to the Fayette County Record, one of whom reasoned the current battle “will insure that the over 2 million new residents of Texas get what they are entitled to in Congress: fair representation.” That is a bogus CRT argument. Fair and entitled representation is the sticking point. The battle over fair representation nearly scuttled the effort to ratify the U.S. Constitution, a problem the Founding Fathers stuck us with.

For instance, South Carolina sends 7 representatives to the House; 6 are Republican. The 7th, currently held by James Clyburn (D-SC), is packed to affirm the civil rights of African Americans, which a FCR letter writer might call “unconstitutionally racially biased” gerrymandering. In 2024, Trump received 58.2% of the vote in South Carolina, Harris received 40.4? South Carolina’s Republican portion of the U.S. House delegation is 85.7%, 6 of 7. That is quite different than the ratio of Trump to Harris. What’s fair?

What about Texas? Trump received 56.3% of the vote, and Harris received 42.4%. How does the U.S. House delegation currently break down? Texas sends 38 representatives to the House: 25 are Republicans and 12 are Democrats (one is currently vacant denying citizens a voice in the U.S. House). That ratio is a 65.8% to 31.6% advantage for Republicans. President Trump claims he deserves 5 more seats. What’s fair? The battle raises the principle of fairness and the right to self-determination. When does imbalance violate the principle of taxation without representation?

Here are other state ratios. Alabama 5 Republicans (71.4%) and 2 democrats (28.6%); Trump 64.8 % and Harris 34.2%. Illinois 17 representatives, 14 Democrats (82%) and 3 Republicans (17.6%). In Illinois, Harris got 53% of the vote and Trump, 45%.

Critics of the current system complain that it is racially biased, cheered on by the DOJ. That battle has been fought since 1865 especially during the Civil Rights struggle. The issue of prioritizing race in redistricting is at foot in Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas, and before courts at various levels, including the Supreme Court. Because redistricting is not settled law, legal interpretations change with the times and the mission of the DOJ.

The fight goes on. The stakes are high. The debate reflects the character, identity, and viability of our nation. People want the representation that they “deserve,” but what do they deserve? The Declaration’s standard is the “just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Bob Heath Carmine