We’ve all heard about the pay gap between men and women, but it seems that one specific statistic is used to illustrate this issue. Proponents of new equal pay laws claim that women make “77 cents for every dollar a man makes.” It’s a number that has been passed around for years by feminist groups, political organizations, and even many prominent politicians. Even President Obama used the “77 cents to a dollar” claim in his 2014 State of the Union address as an example of injustice against women.

Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.

-President Obama, 2014 State of the Union address

While that statistic is accurate, further analysis indicates that it may not be the best way to capture the issue at hand. The available evidence suggests that there is a notable wage gap, but that evidence also suggests that the cause of the gap is due to a wide range of factors, which must be taken into account when talking about wage disparities.

Where does this “77 cents” statistic come from and to what extent is wage discrimination a problem for women in the workforce?

The Statistics

You get the 77 cents claim when you take the median, full-time, year-round wage for men and compare it to that of women using data from the census. While accurate based on that calculation, it may also be misleading. The statistic does not take into consideration differences in skills, education level, relevant experience, benefits, hours worked, or even occupation. According to the Washington Post, comparing wages based on weekly earnings narrows the gap to 19 cents and when you look at hourly wages the gap is 14 cents, but those measures also have drawbacks.

The variance between different wage gap estimates generally comes from how these statistics are gathered. Each survey and calculation use different methodologies and it’s very difficult to determine objectively how and if discrimination plays a role in wage differences.

So what’s the pay difference when you take all these into consideration? What other factors may also cause this gap?

Causes:

Hours and Family Care

According to the Center for American Progress, women work on average 35 minutes per day fewer than men. While this most likely will not have an impact on employees who are salaried, that difference will have a notable effect on workers receiving an hourly wage.

According to a Harvard Business Review Study, 43 percent of women with children leave the workforce at some point. There are many reasons why women drop out of the workforce after having children–unpaid maternity leave causes many women to leave their jobs to raise their children due to high childcare costs and time constraints. The statistics also show that once women leave the workforce, many never return. Of those who stop working, only three-quarters of them will eventually start again, and less than half will resume full-time jobs. Because many women don’t return to work in the same capacity as they left, their wages and experience levels are typically lower once they re-enter. Available evidence suggests that having children disproportionately affects women’s careers relative to their husbands. BLS data shows that women who are not married have a much smaller wage gap–earning 95 cents for every dollar a man makes.

Education and Occupations

Men and women also choose different career paths, which often can result in large income differences. In 2013, Georgetown University conducted a survey on the average wage by college major. The study found that nine of the ten best-paying majors were mostly chosen by men:

1. Petroleum Engineering: 87 percent male
2. Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: 48 percent male
3. Mathematics and Computer Science: 67 percent male
4. Aerospace Engineering: 88 percent male
5. Chemical Engineering: 72 percent male
6. Electrical Engineering: 89 percent male
7. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: 97 percent male
8. Mechanical Engineering: 90 percent male
9. Metallurgical Engineering: 83 percent male
10. Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90 percent male

On the other hand, nine out of ten of the lowest paying majors were dominated by women:

1. Counseling Psychology: 74 percent female
2. Early Childhood Education: 97 percent female
3. Theology and Religious Vocations: 34 percent female
4. Human Services and Community Organization: 81 percent female
5. Social Work: 88 percent female
6. Drama and Theater Arts: 60 percent female
7. Studio Arts: 66 percent female
8. Communication Disorders Sciences and Services: 94 percent female
9. Visual and Performing Arts: 77 percent female
10. Health and Medical Preparatory Programs: 55 percent female

These numbers show that women generally prefer careers that help serve the community or require a level of artistic ability. Men, on the other hand, are more likely to enter a field that involves engineering and manufacturing development. This may be the biggest factor for wage differences, as a community organizer would not make the same as a biochemical engineer.

But why are so few women entering these higher paying, male dominated fields? A study by Indiana University Bloomington shows that many women who enter these “sex-segregated” fields experience high levels of stress due to “coworkers doubting their competence,” “low levels of support from coworkers,” and even sexual harassment. Instead of outright wage discrimination–where women are given less money than men for the same work–this study suggests that different biases push women into lower-paying fields.

Women also tend to prefer jobs that have greater benefits (paid maternity leave and more vacation time) even if the pay is lower. According to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, when benefits are included in a worker’s total compensation, the wage gap shrinks to 3.6 percent.

Overall Pay Difference

According to PolitiFact, when every factor is accounted for, the wage gap narrows to 93 to 95 cents per dollar. This does not indicate equal pay, but it also shows that 77 cent statistic can be overly simplistic. The evidence suggests that outright discrimination has decreased over the years, but it still exists and certain factors disproportionately affect women in the workforce. According to a survey by Glamour magazine, only 39 percent of women asked for a higher pay when starting a new job versus 54 percent of men.

But there is also a large chance that wage differences may be due to discrimination. For example, women may be denied raises or promotions over their male coworkers. According to a Gallup survey, 15 percent of women feel that they were wrongfully denied a promotion because of their gender.

There are other things to consider as well. Raising the tipped minimum wage would greatly benefit women as they make up 2/3 of tip workers. Pay transparency would allow women to discuss their pay with their co-workers, making it easier to identify pay discrimination. Paid and longer maternity leave would also encourage mothers to re-enter the workforce in stronger numbers.

Conclusion

It’s incredibly difficult to determine the exact size of the gender wage gap and the extent to which discrimination plays a role. Because each study uses different calculations, there are often significant disparities in gap estimates. But nearly all reliable and credible surveys do show there is some level of wage discrimination between men and women–whether it is 5 percent or 22 percent. Even if the gap is only one percent, that’s still an injustice.

Resources

Primary

Gallup: In U.S., 15 percent of Women Feel Unfairly Denied a Promotion

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: Gender Wage Gap May be Much Smaller than Most Think

Georgetown University: The Economic Value of College Majors

Additional

Wall Street Journal: Washington’s Equal Pay Obsession

ARI.org: February 20 is White House Equal Pay Day

Washington Examiner: The ’77 Cents for Every Dollar’ Lie

Washington Post: The White House’s Own Wage Gender Gap

 FactCheck.org: Playing Politics with the Pay Gap

Washington Post: President Obama’s Persistent ’77-cent’ Claim on the Wage Gap Gets a New Pinocchio Rating

Washington Post: The ‘Equal Pay Day’ Factoid that Women Make 78 Cents For Every Dollar Earned by Men

TechRepublic: TechRepublic has Just Published its 2010 IT Skills and Salary Report

 Center for American Progress: Explaining the Gender Wage Gap

The Atlantic: Why 43 percent of Women With Children Leave Their Jobs

Medical Daily: Women Working In Male-Dominated Jobs Experience Higher Levels Of Stress And Health Problems

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Seventy-Seven Cents: The Statistics on Wage Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

Executive control over declaring war or starting military missions has long been a controversial topic. According to the U.S. Constitution, only the legislative branch can order military attacks. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, sometimes called the War Powers Clause, declares that Congress has the power “to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Despite Congress having authorization authority, many presidents have used their executive powers to send soldiers into battle without an official declaration of war. This has been done in order to quickly activate military forces until Congress has time to pass funding and other approval measures. One might think that this violates the Constitution and has the president undermining Congress. So what powers does the president have in commanding military operations?

A Complicated History

Due to the process of checks and balances, Congress and the president both have roles in military actions. Congressional approval is needed to declare war, fund armed missions, and make laws that shape the execution of the mission. The president has the power to sign off on or veto the declaration of war, just like on other congressional bills. The president is also the Commander-in-Chief and oversees the mission once Congress has declared war. So in short, if the president vetoes a congressional declaration of war, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, and still force the president to control military action he does not support.

For more than 200 years presidents have asked Congress for approval of war, but many presidents have wanted to bypass Congress to put their own military operations into place. It wasn’t until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 that Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1941, which gave the executive branch more power over military interventions and homeland protection, including ordering war participation from independent government agencies, and expurgating communications with foreign countries. These powers lasted until six months after the military operation. The Second War Powers Act was passed the following year, which gave the executive branch more authority overseeing War World II operations. It was this act that allowed the U.S. to relocate and incarcerate more than 100,000 Japanese Americans.

Presidents used the War Powers Act numerous times over the next 20 years. Neither the Korean or Vietnam Wars were technically wars, but were military interventions in intense foreign conflicts because neither of them were passed as a declaration of war. This angered legislators who believed the president had too much control of the military. In response, they passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which President Richard Nixon vetoed arguing that it undermined his role as Commander-in-Chief; however, his veto was overridden by Congress.

What does the Resolution do?

The resolution extends the president’s power by allowing him to conduct military operations without congressional approval, but there are limits. The War Powers Resolution allows the president to send armed forces without congressional approval only if there is an attack on American soil or its territories; otherwise the military intervention would require congressional approval. It also forces the president to notify Congress within the first 48 hours of the mission and forbids armed forces from intervening longer than 60 days, with an additional 30 days to withdraw.

Has the War Powers Resolution been violated?

Since the beginning of the resolution, numerous presidents have put military actions into play without congressional support, sometimes well past the 60-day window. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton continued the assault on Kosovo past the deadline. In this case, Congress did not directly approve the missions, but approved funding for them.

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress overwhelming passed a law permitting President George W. Bush to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Support for the invasion of several Middle Eastern countries was high at first, but after years of fighting with no end in sight, approval for the “War on Terror” fell and so did public opinion of Bush’s handling of the war.

In 2011, President Barack Obama faced backlash from Congress and voters who claimed his use of executive powers as Commander-in-Chief were being stretched and that his actions overreached his authority. When the Libyan army started to kill its own citizens for protesting their government, Obama and leaders from several European countries decided to aid the Libyan civilian rebels by enforcing no-fly zones and providing aid for the cause. Because the president put into place a military action on his own, congressional Republicans called foul, saying he overstepped his boundaries by not first getting Congressional approval. The president defended his actions saying that U.S. military involvement did not meet the constitutional definition of a war and that it was not the U.S. that was leading the mission, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Despite his assertion, in a letter addressed to President Obama, Speaker John Boehner demanded that the president withdraw troops; ten lawmakers from both sides of the aisle filed a lawsuit against the President for not getting congressional approval for the intervention.

Fighting ended on October 31 and NATO ended its operations following the death of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. The suit, along with ideas for other potential legal actions, then ceased for the most part, due to dismissal precedent of similar cases.

How do voters feel about President Obama’s intervention?

At its beginning, most Americans were supportive of the president’s intervention in Libya. In March 2011, a Washington Post-ABC poll found that 56 percent of those polled were in favor of the U.S. implementing a no-fly zone across the region in order to protect Libyan rebels from government attacks. While the support for assistance was very high, Americans overwhelming believed that activating troops on the ground was too much, with polls showing disapproval around 90 percent.

Support for the military action was strong in the first weeks, with about 60 percent of Americans supporting the president’s initiatives, but as time marched on without any end in sight, support began to wane. By early June, only 26 percent of those surveyed believed the U.S. should continue the mission, according to a Rasmussen Report poll.

These polls seem to show that Americans don’t like unchecked military actions that go on too long. Does that mean the War Powers Act should be replaced with something that better balances executive actions and congressional approval?

Is repeal of the resolution on the horizon?

Congress has not officially declared war since June 1942 during World War II when it unanimously voted for war against the Axis countries of Bulgaria, Hungry, and Romania. Many lawmakers think that because the U.S. response to foreign conflicts has become quicker due to improvements in technology and intergovernmental military alliances–like NATO–that the War Powers Resolution is no longer needed.

Several members of Congress have suggested the repeal of the War Powers Resolution entirely, or replacing it with a measure that gives the president diminished power. In January 2014, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) revealed a piece of legislation, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2014, that would replace the resolution and restrict the president’s military power. It would require the president to consult with Congress before using military forces in foreign conflicts and require the president to consult Congress within three days of deployment. It also sought to create a Joint Congressional Consultation Committee that would enforce a dialog between the executive and legislative branches. The act would not apply to humanitarian or covert missions. After the Libyan conflict ended in a substantial NATO victory in October 2011, support for reform fell until military intervention in Syria in 2014.

Conclusion

The definition of war makes it difficult to effectively apply the War Powers Resolution. Does war mean boots on the ground, weaponry assistance, or no-fly zones? This question is hard to answer and is debated with almost every military intervention.

Americans tend to support giving an incumbent president more power over military decisions when citizens are attacked on U.S. soil, and during the early part of missions. Once the mission seems to be dragging on, support and morale fall, and so does congressional support. If a president wants to go rogue on his own, he has to get the job done fast or the missions might fail to maintain support. The War Powers Resolution has helped the U.S. respond to foreign conflicts quickly and without that power many missions may never have been started.

Resources

Primary

Library of Congress: The War Powers Act

Additional

Washington Post: Conditional Support For Libya No-Fly Zone

IBT: Majority of Americans Against Sending Ground Troops to Libya

Washington Post: White House Should be Moderately Worried on Libya

U.S. Senate: Official Declarations of War by Congress

Senator Tim Kaine: Kaine, McCain Introduce Bill to Reform War Powers Resolution

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post War Powers Act: Has it Outlasted Its Usefulness? appeared first on Law Street.

Capital punishment has long been a controversial practice in the United States. Some feel that society needs to rid the country of America’s most heinous criminals in order to make room for new prisoners or to save taxpayer money, while others point out that the U.S. has executed more than 150 innocent people and this punishment cannot be undone. But why do people feel so strongly about the death penalty, how have their feelings changed over time, and what does this mean for capital punishment moving forward?

The Death Penalty Today

Demographics of the Death Penalty

In 2013, of the 2,979 inmates on death row, roughly half of them were held in four states: California, Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Divided by race, inmates were 56 percent white and 42 percent black. Along gender lines, men outnumbered women one to 49, with men comprising 98 percent of death-row inmates and women only two percent.

Which states still use the death penalty?

The following states still use capital punishment:

The federal government and military also use capital punishment.

Each state determines which crimes are punishable by death. Crimes other than murder that can end in a death row sentence include rape of a child, weapons of mass destruction resulting in death, aggravated kidnapping, assault by an escaped capital felon, and aircraft hijacking.

The U.S. Federal Government uses the death penalty for 41 capital offenses including murder for hire, treason, terrorism, espionage, genocide, large-scale drug trafficking, and attempting to kill a witness, juror, or court officer in certain cases.

The following states abolished or no longer use capital punishment:

When the death penalty was removed or abolished in some states, lawmakers were faced with the question of what to do with those already on death row. Should those sentenced to death before the new law be allowed to live? In New Mexico and Connecticut, the answer was no. In 2009 when New Mexico eliminated the penalty, the law was not retroactive, which meant the two people on the state’s death row would still face execution. As of 2015, those two are still on death row. Also those who committed crimes worthy of the death penalty before 2009 could still face execution. The same ruling occurred in Connecticut, which had 11 people still on the state’s death row.

Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty

According to a 2014 Gallup poll, the most common justification for the death penalty is that the punishment fits the crime: an eye for an eye. This reasoning has dramatically decreased in the last 13 years, with 48 percent support in 2001, to 35 percent in 2014. Other reasons include a belief that the convicted person deserves it, that the death penalty can be used to set an example, and that it saves taxpayer money.

According to the same poll, the most popular reasons why people do not support capital punishment include a belief that it’s wrong to take a life at (40 percent), the fear of wrongful execution (17 percent), and religious purposes (17 percent). The fact that it costs more to keep prisoners on death row is very far down the list, polling at only two percent.

These are the various ways in which Americans perceive the death penalty, but are they correct?

The Cost of the Death Penalty

Despite 14 percent of Americans supporting the death penalty in order to save taxpayer dollars, it is actually more expensive to kill an inmate than to incarcerate him for the rest of his life. This revelation complicates the argument over whether or not it makes sense to employ the punishment.

A Los Angeles Times study found that the state of California spent more than $250 million per execution. California has executed 11 people over the course of 27 years and spends an average of $114 million per year on death row inmates. The state spends an additional $114 million per year on security and legal representation. The study also found that housing a death row inmate costs $90,000 more than non-death row inmates. Since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, California has spent more than $4 billion on executions. The reason why death row inmates are so costly is due to the complex and drawn out judicial process. Appeals cost the state and federal government time and money, and the concrete evidence needed, such as DNA testing, is costly. 

Other states have also found that the cost of the death penalty is higher than life sentence cases as well. A Seattle University study that examined death penalty cases in Washington state since 1997 concluded that on average capital punishment cases cost $1 million more than cases that did not seek the death penalty, with costs of $3.07 million and $2.01 million, respectively. Defense and prosecution costs were more than triple in death penalty cases. Since Washington reinstated the death penalty in 1981, the state has spent $120 million on five executions with an average of $24 million per execution.

In Nevada the cost of a capital punishment case is between $1.03 million and $1.3 million while a non-capital punishment case costs about $775,000. The reason for this difference is because death penalty cases are more lengthy and costly to make certain that the sentence is correct.

The average time a convict sits on death row has been increasing since the 1980s. In 1984 the average time between sentencing and execution was 74 months, or a little over six years. In 2012 it was 190 months, or nearly 16 years. That means the average inmate executed in 2015 was convicted in 1999.

In order to prove a fair sentence for execution all doubts must be erased. That is why death row inmates are given due process and appeals after their original sentences.

Concerns Over Wrongful Executions

Even today death row inmates are exonerated due to new evidence and doubts. As of May 2015 there have been 152 people exonerated from death row in United States history, leading to the concern that the justice system is far from infallible.

For example, in 2015 accused murderer Anthony Ray Hilton was freed after 30 years on death row in Alabama. His case made it to the Supreme Court and his defense attorney during his 1985 trial was found “constitutionally deficient” and ballistic evidence proved that he was not the murderer. The case was dropped by the Jefferson County district attorney’s office on April 1, 2015 and two days later his conviction was overturned. Because of his wrongful incarceration, Hilton missed the birth of his grandchild and the death of his mother.

So, is public opinion on the death penalty changing?

Since the 1930s, statistics show that a majority of the U.S. population supports the death penalty. The public’s opinion has fluctuated slowly over time with approval increasing from 47 percent in 1967 to 80 percent in 1995 and decreasing to 63 percent in 2014.

One thing is clear: Americans are losing confidence in the death penalty. According to Gallup, since the late 1990s, support for the death penalty for a convicted killer has fall by 17 percent and opposition has increased by 17 percent.

Conclusion

Capital punishment is legally complicated in many states. Some have the death penalty but do not use it. Others have abolished it but can still sentence people to death. Americans have a lot of things to take into account when deciding what side of the debate they fall into–whether its ethics, costs, or the time it takes to enact capital punishment. The more than 150 confirmed wrongful executions in the United States show that trials and law are not infallible. While approval of the death penalty continues to decrease every year, it’s doubtful that the U.S. will be making a big change any time soon.

Resources

Primary

Bureau of Justice Statistics: Prisoners in 2013

U.S. Department of Justice: Capital Punishment

Additional

Gallup: Death Penalty

Death Penalty: The High Cost of the Death Penalty

Death Penalty: Cost of the Death Penalty

Guardian: Alabama Man Off Death Row After 28 Years

Death Penalty Info: States With and Without the Death Penalty

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Capital Punishment: Is American Opinion Changing? appeared first on Law Street.

It sometimes seems that we’ve been seeing the same faces in Congress for years. It feels like people such as Representatives John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have been in office forever despite Congress’s dismal approval ratings. Why do the same people keep getting reelected, and why is it so hard to unseat incumbents?

One popular answer to that question is gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a redistricting tactic that is used to increase the influence and power of a particular political party. It has been practiced since the country’s founding and has long been a controversial endeavor. Courts have battled with the legality of gerrymandering based on race, ethnicity, and other factors for decades. Read on to learn about what gerrymandering is, what role it plays in American politics, and the arguments against the practice.

What is gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering occurs during the drawing of Congressional district lines when attempts are made to give one political party or candidate an election advantage. These lines are drawn specifically to make reelections easier for a party, or give a party greater influence on other districts. The main intention of gerrymandering is to help one party win as many seats as possible, whether in Congress or in state elections.

Each state has its own process for drawing district lines, and it is the people in charge, typically state legislators, who draw and approve of new boundary lines. Each district has to have close to the same population and new lines are drawn due to population fluctuations, most typically after a census.

What’s in a name?

One of the first known occurrences of gerrymandering in the United States happened during the 1789 election of the very first U.S. Congress. The Anti-Federalists and founding father Patrick Henry controlled the Virginia House of Delegates, the legislative body that drew the boundaries for the state’s districts. They purposely designed Virginia’s 5^th district in a way to keep James Madison, a Federalist, from winning the seat. However, their attempts were unsuccessful and Madison won the seat.

The term “gerrymander” came from the actions of the Governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry in 1810. He was responsible for shaping new districts and the Boston Gazette commented that one of them was shaped like a salamander. Gerry’s name was combined with salamander and the term “gerrymander” was born.

Later, the Republican Party also used gerrymandering on a larger scale to acquire more states that were beneficial to the party. For example North and South Dakota, Republican friendly locations, were admitted as two separate states. That created more districts and senators for the Republicans than one state alone would.

Who draws the lines?

Each state has its own processes of redistricting. In 37 states, the state legislature governs the redistricting process and redraws the districts. It is usually passed like a piece of legislation and requires only a majority vote to pass. Because of this, the majority party in the legislature decides the district lines.

Of these 37 states, five use advisory commissions to help make fair district lines, but the ultimate decision is still up to the state legislature and it has no obligation to follow the commission’s recommendation.

In two states (New Jersey and Hawaii) the task of redistricting is up to political commissions, commissions comprised of certain elected officials. Typically there’s an equal amount of commissioners from each party and several commissioners from neither party. This ensures that no plan gets approved with only partisan support.

Four states (Washington, Idaho, California, and Arizona) use commissions made up of non-elected officials in an attempt to regulate the redistricting process and stop political influences altogether.

Seven states (Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware and Vermont) have no need for redistricting plans as they have only one congressional representative each, also know as “at-large” districts.

Is redistricting allowed to benefit one party?

The Supreme Court Case Davis v. Bandermer (1986) found that partisan gerrymandering violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the same time, no decision was made on what legal standards partisan gerrymandering claims could be made. This has made it difficult to make legal claims against alleged partisan gerrymandering and has allowed it to continue.

In the 2004 Supreme Court case Vieth v. Jubelirer the court, once again, could not determine how gerrymandering claims could be evaluated.

Four Gerrymandering Tactics

There are four common types of gerrymandering:

Cracking is when voters of one type are spread throughout many districts in order to prevent them from having a large voting bloc in any district. An example of cracking is when poor, urban voters are spread across districts where a large majority of the voters are rural. This prevents the urban voters from carrying much weight during elections. This is the most common type of gerrymandering.

Packing involves concentrating as many as possible of a single bloc of voters into one district to reduce their impact in other districts. An example would be putting most urban voters in one district and very few in other districts to give them only one district where they have a large presence. Many times this creates a majority-minority district, when one district is composed mostly of minority groups.

Hijacking is done when a state’s districts are redrawn after a census. Two districts are altered so that two incumbents of the same party are forced to run against each other. This guarantees that one of them will be voted out. The other district, with no incumbent, is then more easily won by the other party.

Kidnapping also occurs during redistricting, when voters of the incumbent’s party are moved out of the district to make reelection more difficult. For example, Democratic voters are moved out of an incumbent Democrat’s district and are replaced with Republican voters. This makes it difficult for the Democratic candidate to be reelected and easier for a Republican candidate to win.

What do gerrymandered districts look like?

Sometimes districts are shaped in very deformed ways. For example, check out this map by the United States Geological Survey that shows Illinois’ 4th Congressional District. It was designed to connect Chicago with other cities in order to make a heavily Democratic district.

How does gerrymandering impact elections?

Approval ratings for Congress have been below 20 percent for years, but that doesn’t mean that 80 percent of incumbents get ousted every election. Instead, it’s usually the opposite.

During the 2012 U.S. House of Representatives election, Democratic candidates received 59,318,160 votes and Republicans received only 58,143,273 votes (48.8 percent to 47.6  percent.) But Democrats won 201 seats and Republicans won 234 seats (44.9 percent to 51.7 percent). Despite the Democrats receiving more votes as a whole due to gerrymandering, Republican incumbents were mostly able to hold on to their seats. Overall roughly 90 percent of incumbents won reelection in 2012. On a state level, in 2010 Republicans won majorities in many state legislatures, and given the 2010 Census results, many districts were redrawn to benefit Republican incumbents.

Almost all districts have been gerrymandered to help incumbents get reelected. Most legislatures are typically comprised of both the majority and minority parties; they mutually agree to pack each district with their respective party’s voters in order to ensure reelection. Many of these districts are called 70/30 districts where two districts that are split 50/50 in party affiliation are each drawn 70/30 for a different party, guaranteeing each party wins one district. This is known as bipartisan gerrymandering, which protects both parties’ interests.

But sometimes a legislature is controlled largely by one party. They may redistrict in a cracking manner that prevents the minority party from having any significant influence in any district, making reelection very easy for the majority party’s incumbents.This is partisan gerrymandering which favors only one party.

How can boundary lines be decided objectively?

One of the biggest problems opponents have with gerrymandering is that the self-interested party is the one who oversees and commands redistricting. These parties are accused of only caring about aiding themselves and not their constituents. Opponents to gerrymandering have proposed different remedies to prevent gerrymandering.

Court approved redistricting would prevent specific party-favored redistricting and strike down gerrymandering plans. This would require all redistricting plans to be presented and approved by either state or federal courts. The Supreme Court has already ruled that if a plan violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a new plan must be presented that fixes the gerrymandering problem. If that plan also violates the law, a federal court could draw the plan.

Independent non-partisan commissions have been proposed to decide redistricting plans without political influence. Arizona, California and Washington have already adopted similar commissions.

Who agrees with gerrymandering?

Despite the disapproval by many of gerrymandering practices, there are some who argue for the practice.

By making it easier for incumbents to be reelected, there is less of a chance of a huge wave of change each election. If voter opinion changes from cycle to cycle (as it often does) there will not be huge shifts of changing leadership. If one party in the House is given an outstanding majority, any bill passed may be too polarizing to pass in the Senate, resulting in gridlock. Gerrymandering allows for gradual changes in representative composition.

Packing gerrymandering can also be used to prevent a minority group from being underrepresented. If a minority does not have enough voters in any district to have much influence in elections, then putting them in one district gives them a higher chance of electing someone based on their beliefs.

Conclusion

Party politics holds a very large role in how districts are drawn. While the United States’ democracy ensures that everyone will have the chance to vote on who represents them, gerrymandering is seen by some as an impediment to true representation. While gerrymandering can have some benefits, it is also responsible for keeping many disliked representatives in office. While there may never be a way to make sure that everyone’s vote makes a big impact, drawing districts fairly is an admirable goal toward which we should all strive.

Resources

Primary

NationalMaps.gov: Printable Maps

Additional

Study: Gerrymandering: Definition, History, Types & Examples 

Politics & Policy: Gerrymandering – Proving all Politics is Local

Loyola Law School: Who Draws the Lines?

Gallup: 2014 U.S. Approval of Congress Remains Near All-Time Low

POLITICO: 2012 Reelection Rate: 90 percent

Newsworks: Boehner and House Republicans Lack Mandate to Oppose Obama

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gerrymandering: (Mis)Shaping America’s Vote? appeared first on Law Street.

For some, the term “lobbying” evokes the thought of fat cat plutocrats piping money into Congress to keep their interests and deep pockets protected. But while voting is the most fundamental aspect of a democracy, lobbying–for better or worse–is one of the most direct ways to influence policy making. Read on to learn about the lobbying system in the United States, as well as the benefits and negative effects of this system.

What is lobbying?

Lobbying is a right protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and ultimately allows citizens to shape legislators’ decisions. U.S. citizens have the right to petition, free speech, and freedom of the press, so when citizens want to influence government policy, they are constitutionally protected.

Those who hire lobbyists are usually called special interest groups–groups of people who use advocacy to influence policy and public opinion.

Types of Lobbying

There are two core types of lobbying: inside and outside. Inside lobbying occurs when individuals contact their legislators directly, mostly through phone calls and letters. Outside lobbying is when citizens or interest groups form campaigns or organizations to influence public opinion or to pressure policymakers.

Types of Lobbyists 

While lobbying by businesses that see a particular benefit in swaying our lawmakers is very common, there are other motivations for lobbying as well. Unions, for example, also lobby for issues pertaining to taxes, workers’ rights, and the minimum wage, just to name a few.

Religious lobbying is another good example. The head of a church or religious organization might lobby Congress to denounce a bill that would not fit the view of the congregation. The number of religious lobbying organizations has increased from less than 40 in 1970 to more than 200 in 2012. Catholic organizations lead the way, making up 19 percent of all religious lobbying groups. So, lobbying isn’t just about the money, it can take the form of moral or personal interests as well.

Lobbying is not only popular on the federal level, but also at the state level. A 2006 survey by the Center for Public Integrity reported that there were 40,000 paid lobbyists working with state legislatures, with that number expected to rise. Other lobbying efforts are even more local. Trying to persuade a city council to halt something like a construction project to preserve wildlife is another common example of lobbying.

When is the best time for lobbying efforts?

Lobbying is most common weeks before a bill is set to be voted on, when proponents of the bill gather to discuss how they will go about presenting the initiative. Another common time to see lobbyists is during election season. This time is crucial as lobbyists can put more pressure on members of Congress to please their constituents and recognize the immediate effect of voting against their constituents’ opinions.

Show Me the Money: Lobbyists and Spending

The amount of money spent on lobbying since the late 1990s has increased dramatically, despite fluctuations in the number of lobbyists. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets, in 1998 there were 10,405 individual lobbyists and lobbying spending totaled $1.45 billion. In 2010 there were 12,948 lobbyists, and spending totaled a high of $3.52 billion. This means that there was a 24 percent increase in lobbyists, and a staggering 143 percent increase in total spending. Fewer lobbyists are representing more wealthy interest groups.

While the fundamental practice of lobbying is notifying members of the legislative branch of the positive and/or negative consequences of their decisions, this simple practice is made complicated by companies and organizations that spend millions of dollars per year to convince members of Congress to vote for policies that positively benefit their businesses. The following list, also compiled by Open Secrets, shows the spending of the largest Congressional lobbyists in the U.S. in 2014.

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce: $124,080,000
• National Association of Realtors: $55,057,053
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield: $21,888,774
• American Hospital Association: $20,773,146
• American Medical Association:  $19,650,000
• National Association of Broadcasters: $18,440,000

According to Open Secrets, $3.24 billion dollars was spent on lobbying Congress and federal agencies in 2014. While that’s not quite as high as the peak in 2010, it doesn’t show signs of slowing down significantly anytime soon.

Regulating Lobbying

The U.S. has very tight restrictions on lobbying, with violations of these restrictions punishable by jail time or fines. These punishments can sometimes take very severe and costly forms. For example, the Sacramento Bee reported in 2014 that the California Correctional Peace Officers Association was hit with a $5,500 fine for failing to disclose $24,603.50 in gifts to state representatives. In another case, documented by the Los Angeles Times, a lobbyist was fined $133,500, the highest lobbying fine ever, for making illegal campaign donations to 40 California politicians.

The Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 was a major piece of legislation that attempted to regulate and hold lobbyists accountable. While this law helped bring transparency to lobbyists, there were many loopholes, such as the fact that small grassroots lobbying groups whose “activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in services” were not regulated. Due to the many loopholes in the original law, parts of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 were amended into the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The law gives very specific guidelines for Congressional lobbying, and prohibits activities such as bribery.

Lobbying Disclosure Act 

Here is a portion of Section 6 of the act:

Section 6 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), 2 U.S.C. § 1605, provides that: The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall (1) provide guidance and assistance on the registration and reporting requirements of this Act and develop common standards, rules, and procedures for compliance with this Act; [and] (2) review, and, where necessary, verify and inquire to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of registrations and reports.

Essentially, this portion works to guarantee the transparency and accountability of lobbyists and the officials they lobby.

Other provisions of the law include that lobbyists are required to register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. In addition, Cabinet Secretaries and other senior executive personnel are prohibited from lobbying the department or agency in which they worked for two years after they leave their position.

Some of the law also regulates interactions between lobbyists and officials. Lobbyists are prohibited from providing gifts, including travel, to members of Congress with the intent of violating House or Senate rules. The law also requires that lobbyist disclosures be filed electronically in both the Senate and House, and mandated the creation of a publicly searchable Internet database of such disclosures. It also prohibits officials from attending parties held in their honor at national party conventions if they have been sponsored by lobbyists, unless the member is the party’s presidential or vice presidential nominee.

How do the American people feel about lobbyists?

While lobbying is an important democratic right, most Americans view lobbyists negatively. A Gallup Poll released in 2013 showed that only six percent of Americans believe lobbyists are honest or have high ethical standards. Further confirming America’s view of lobbyists, seven in ten Americans believe that lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.

Arguments for Lobbying 

Those who support lobbying efforts point out that lobbyists bring to the forefront of the conversation topics that are not in the expertise areas of a politician. For example, a congressman with a background in energy legislation may benefit from more information on foreign affairs topics. Lobbyists also have the opportunity to educate legislators of the opinions of minorities that they may otherwise not learn about. Finally, lobbyists can bring about change directly by influencing the votes of politicians.

Arguments Against Lobbying

Those who disagree with our current lobbying system point to the Citizen’s United Supreme Court case, which allowed unlimited donations to political campaigns. They worry that such a broad decision may give lobbyists more power in negotiating a legislator’s vote. In addition, the pressure of interest groups influences politicians to vote in favor of the interest group, which may not line up with their constituents’ viewpoints. Finally, there’s a consistent fear that lobbyists use bribery and monetary threats to guide government actions.

Conclusion

Lobbying is important to the democratic process as it allows citizens to express their interests and opinions and in turn influence policy making. Second to voting, it may be the most important democratic right. But concerns abound that this right has been used increasingly in recent decades as a way for large corporations and interest groups to pressure politicians into passing legislation that favors their interests. While lobbying remains an important right, popular dissent and distrust means that it often leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many.

Resources

OpenSecrets.org: Lobbying Again on the Downward Slide in 2012

Mother Jones: K Street is Holy Place

Aljazeera America: Lobbying Tapered off in 2014 Amid Congressional Gridlock

Office of the Clerk: Lobbying Disclosure Act Guide

Sacramento Bee: Prison Officers’ Union Accepts Fine for Lobbying Violations

Gallup: Honesty and Ethics Rating of Clergy Slides to New Low

Pew: Lobbying for the Faithful

Center for Public Integrity: State Lobbying Becomes Million-Dollar Business

—

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lobbying: Washington’s Dirty Little Secret? appeared first on Law Street.