Two congresswomen from New York have introduced bills that could establish greater transparency in the ways menstrual product companies label ingredients and assess the health risks of products.

Rep. Grace Meng introduced the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act of 2017, which would require companies to include a list of ingredients on the label of menstrual products, such as menstrual cups, menstrual pads, tampons, and therapeutic vaginal douche apparatuses.

She’s joined by Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, who reintroduced a bill that would amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a research program to determine whether chemicals in feminine hygiene products present any health risks. The bill, titled the Robin Danielson Feminine Hygiene Product Safety Act of 2017, was named after a 44-year-old woman who died of toxic shock syndrome from a tampon in 1998.

According to the Maloney’s bill, the average person who menstruates “may use as many as 16,800 tampons” in their lifetime.” Tampons can contain trace amounts of dioxin, which the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization have both concluded can cause cancer.

Aside from dioxin, Maloney’s bill would also instruct the National Institutes of Health to research the presence of synthetic fibers, chlorine, fragrances, dyes, preservatives, and other components in tampons and other feminine hygiene products.

“It is astounding that manufacturers of tampons, pads, menstrual cups and other menstrual hygiene products are not required to disclose the ingredients of these products,” Meng said in a statement on her website. “We can easily see the ingredients used in the shampoo we put in our hair—why doesn’t this apply to products that touch, or are inserted into, sensitive female anatomy?  Consumers are being denied access to crucial information, which affects their safety and impacts their ability to make informed choices. My bill, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act, would finally change that.”

Activists took to D.C. in May in support of the bills.

Thank you to Rep. Grace Meng for introducing legislation on the right to know what’s in our menstrual products! #ComeClean #FemCarerally pic.twitter.com/6An6yA3rGl

— COLOR (@colorlatina) May 23, 2017

Thrilled to join @colorlatina to urge Congress and companies to care about feminine care! #FemCarerally #comeclean #detoxthebox pic.twitter.com/0fKr9jjFDz

— Morgan MenesesSheets (@morgmeneshets) May 23, 2017

Activism surrounding menstrual products is nothing new for Meng. In February, she introduced a “menstrual equity” bill to increase the availability and affordabillity of menstrual hygiene products.

The congresswomen’s bills are still in the early phases of the legislative process, but they highlight a need for transparency in menstrual health.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bills Push to Make Menstrual Product Ingredients More Transparent appeared first on Law Street.

Two weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 1761, a bill aimed at punishing child pornographers. At first glance, this legislation seems like a common-sense child protection law, but the text’s language is so vague that it could include minors who are caught sexting each other and subject them to a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison.

Freshman congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA), introduced the bill last March to close alleged loopholes in existing child pornography laws.

Johnson’s move is largely a response to a botched legal case involving a man accused of the sexual abuse of his seven-year-old neighbor. The man couldn’t be convicted by federal prosecutors because the only available evidence was a single photo of the abuse, which was deemed insufficient by the court.

The bill, which will soon make its way to the Senate, seeks to “criminalize the knowing consent of the visual depiction, or live transmission, of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” While this would prevent additional cases of digital sexual exploitation of minors, the definitions used also criminalize explicit photos being shared among consenting teenagers in a relationship, for example.

A 2014 Drexel University study found that 54 percent of its respondents sexted as minors, with 28 percent of those saying the sexts were photographic. The study also showed that most of these kids were not aware of the legal ramifications their sexts could bring about. If this bill passes, millions of teens across the country could inadvertently slip into criminality.

Though the legislation passed the House with a comfortable and bipartisan 368-51 margin, Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) called the measure “deadly and counterproductive,” according to Reason. A letter signed by Jackson Lee and six other House dissenters concluded that “no child pornography offense should go unpunished. HR 1761, however, would subject more individuals to mandatory minimum penalties at a time when the federal criminal justice system should be moving away from such sentencing schemes. While well-intentioned, the bill would exacerbate a problem that is clearly unfair and unnecessary.”

The ACLU took to Twitter to object to the bill’s passing, once again emphasizing its good intentionality but poor anticipation of real-life application.

The purpose of child pornography laws is to prevent minors from being abused, not criminalize young people for sexual experimentation. https://t.co/2Nvbhs3u3N

— ACLU National (@ACLU) June 1, 2017

Director of federal legislative affairs at Families Against Mandatory Minimums Molly Gill told Broadly: “You’re talking about 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds—young people who are being certainly reckless, but do they need to spend 15 years in prison? At that young age, their brains are not even done developing yet. They have all the potential in the world ahead of them and a 15-year prison sentence is the fastest way to kill their future.”

After the bill was debated, two amendments were proposed to make the language more specific regarding who the bill is targeting. The first would have removed the possibility for teens to be punished as sex offenders for sexting. The second eliminated the mandatory minimum penalties. Neither amendment passed.

In response to his colleagues’ concerns, Johnson said that “in Scripture, Romans 13 refers to the governing authorities as ‘God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.’ I, for one, believe we have a moral obligation, as any just government should, to defend the defenseless.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Aimed at Pornographers Could Subject Teens to Jail Time for Sexting appeared first on Law Street.

Federal workers can breathe a sigh of relief (at least for one week): the Senate and the House both passed a short-term spending bill on Friday to fund the government at its current levels until next Friday. This averted a government shutdown that would have occurred if a deal had not been reached by midnight.

Some of the most contentious issues preventing a longer-term spending bill from being passed were funding for the border wall and an Affordable Care Act subsidy for low-income individuals, among others.

Even the one-week funding bill had a bumpy road to its passage, as many Democrats threatened to oppose its approval as long as Republicans planned to vote on repealing and replacing the ACA this week (within the President’s first 100 days). In the end, the health care vote was not scheduled for Friday.

President Donald Trump did not seem too concerned with the possibility of a shutdown, telling Reuters on Thursday, “we’ll see what happens. If there’s a shutdown, there’s a shutdown.” He also harshly criticized the Democratic Party in a series of Tweets on Thursday, accusing them of putting roadblocks in place and being responsible for a potential shutdown.

The Democrats want to shut government if we don’t bail out Puerto Rico and give billions to their insurance companies for OCare failure. NO!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

I promise to rebuild our military and secure our border. Democrats want to shut down the government. Politics!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

As families prepare for summer vacations in our National Parks – Democrats threaten to close them and shut down the government. Terrible!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

The one-week spending bill buys Congress more time to smooth out conflicts and draft up a longer-term spending bill for the rest of the year.

The environment for government workers has been tenser than usual, to say the least. In addition to the possibility of a shutdown, federal workers have recently had to endure the possibility of job cuts, as Trump’s budget proposals have called to reduce the federal workforce by as many as 200,000 jobs. Also on Friday, officials announced that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson proposed to cut 2,300 jobs in the State Department.

Meanwhile, a large number of federal appointments still have yet to be selected by Trump. Politico reported that 470 out of 556 positions requiring Senate confirmation do not have nominees yet. It remains to be seen if the remaining issues in the long-term spending bill will be ironed out before this temporary measure expires on May 5.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Crisis Averted: Congress Approves Funding to Avoid Government Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

A day after ruling out a re-election bid in the 2018 midterms, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Thursday let slip that he could end his term early. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a onetime prospect for Speaker of the House, said: “My future plans are not yet finalized but I haven’t ruled out the possibility of leaving early.”

Utah’s Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox told the WSJ that officials are preparing for a special election in Chaffetz’s 3rd Congressional District. Despite his prevalent role in the oversight committee–a role that expires in 2020–and his advantageous position after Republicans took over Washington in November, Chaffetz, 50, announced his decision to opt out of the 2018 race in a Facebook post early Wednesday:

Since late 2003 I have been fully engaged with politics as a campaign manager, a chief of staff, a candidate and as a Member of Congress. I have long advocated public service should be for a limited time and not a lifetime or full career. Many of you have heard me advocate, “Get in, serve, and get out.” After more than 1,500 nights away from my home, it is time. I may run again for public office, but not in 2018.

He added he is “healthy” and there are “no ulterior motives” behind his decision. Initially opposed to President Donald Trump’s candidacy, Chaffetz ultimately supported the president. Since his flip-flop on Trump, Chaffetz has been booed and heckled at town hall meetings.

Before Congress and the White House both turned red, Chaffetz was a feisty GOP attack dog; he targeted Hillary Clinton’s handling of the bombing at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi in 2012. He also took aim at Clinton’s private email server, an issue that dogged her throughout the campaign.

Some are speculating that Chaffetz bowed out early because of two well-funded challengers, both first-time political candidates: Democrat Kathryn Allen, a physician, and Republican Damian Kidd, a lawyer. But Chaffetz could also be taking a hiatus from the political scene before a gubernatorial run in 2020, something he reportedly expressed interest in last year.

In his farewell Facebook post, which may be the official send-off to his supporters, Chaffetz wrote: “Thank you for allowing me to serve as your Representative in the United States House of Representatives. Serving is an honor and a privilege that I have never taken for granted.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz Stepping Down Early? appeared first on Law Street.

On April 18, Democrats hope to flip a reliably red district in suburban Atlanta blue, in a special election for the House seat left vacant by Tom Price. Price is now the secretary of Health and Human Services. Jon Ossoff, the leading Democratic hopeful, is one of 18 candidates for Georgia’s Sixth District–most are Republicans. All will appear on the same ballot, which Ossoff, 30, hopes to exploit.

Decency. Humility. Respect. Values this campaign believes in. Values worth fighting for. https://t.co/fBvar6nbGX pic.twitter.com/P59QQ1t4dm

— Jon Ossoff (@ossoff) April 1, 2017

If the Republican vote is split among the dozen or so Republicans, Ossoff can win the election outright. To do that, he would need at least 50 percent of the vote which, in a district that has been a GOP bastion for decades, is far from guaranteed. If none of the candidates clinch the election with 50 percent of the vote, a run-off is scheduled in June for the top two vote-getters.

Republican strategists say that Ossoff’s best chance is to win outright on April 18, something they cede is possible, but they remain confident that he would lose in a run-off to whichever Republican candidate emerges from the pack. Steve Strivers, the National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, recently told Politico that he is confident enough Republican voters will turn out to stave off the surging Ossoff.

“Special elections are special, and the Democrats and some independents are excited, so we need to make sure Republicans are just as excited about voting,” he said “Our job is to make sure we keep him below 50 [percent],” Stivers added: “Then we coalesce and unite our forces around one candidate in June.”

The top candidates from both parties are pulling an uncommon number of campaign donations. Ossoff has raised more than $4 million, including over $1 million from readers of the liberal-leaning news site, the Daily Kos. The surge in donations is likely a result of the liberal resistance to President Donald Trump, which Ossoff has pledged to join if he were elected. Republicans have also raised a few million dollars to boost their field of candidates, including front-runner–and former Georgia secretary of state–Karen Handel.

While the Sixth District has been a Republican stronghold for decades, there are some signs that Ossoff, a Georgetown University graduate who currently works as a documentary filmmaker, can turn the tide blue. For one, polls show Ossoff in the lead. But perhaps more importantly, the district supported Trump over his opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, by 1.5 percentage points, a far narrower victory than Republican candidates traditionally enjoy in the affluent, highly-educated district.

A Democratic victory would not have a sizable affect on the make-up of the House, as Republicans currently hold 237 seats to Democrats’ 193. Five seats are vacant, four of which are open because the representatives were tapped for posts in the Trump Administration, including Price. But as one of the first elections since Trump’s Election Day upset, Democrats could score a symbolic notch that could provide momentum for the mid-term elections in 2018.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Jon Ossoff’s Campaign for Georgia’s Sixth appeared first on Law Street.

Today is the best day of the year: #NationalPuppyDay. Puppies are great, because they a) aren’t trying to take health insurance away from 24 million people b) aren’t affiliated with Russia, and c) are much cuter than humans. In honor of #NationalPuppyDay, let’s take a quick look at the best political puppies so far in 2017.

Senator Thom Tillis Made a New Friend

Our official office mascot, Tilly, a 3lb Boston Terrier puppy.

A post shared by Senator Thom Tillis (@senthomtillis) on Jan 24, 2017 at 7:06am PST

Tilly, a Boston Terrier puppy, appears to belong to one of Tillis’s staffers. But she’s not the only dog in Tillis’s life. The senator’s love of dogs is well documented. During the 2016 election he released a video of his dog, Ike Tillis, whining about Hillary Clinton, Obamacare, ISIS, and the deficit. He also encouraged his dog to vote, which is definitely not legal, but Ike is too cute for us to care.

Biden, the Puppy Who Stole Our Hearts

This is a recent addition to best political puppies of 2017. Biden, a four-month-old golden retriever puppy, got to meet Joe Biden, a human and former VP, yesterday.

It seems like they got along well:

Joe Biden met a puppy named “Biden” and the internet lost its mind https://t.co/CW9LOeryq6 pic.twitter.com/dPDnAHcgI0

— Mic (@mic) March 23, 2017

Biden the puppy probably has a long political career ahead of him.

i have a dream

A post shared by biden (@bidenthegolden) on Feb 24, 2017 at 8:27am PST

Rep. Rick Crawford’s Office Has a Maltipoo

Representative Rick Crawford, a Republican representative from Arkansas, has a puppy named Brady who greets constituents who decide to stop by the D.C. office. News of Brady’s hiring broke in mid-January, and according to Crawford’s office, Brady “will be handling all of our canine related policies and will be my go to pup on the #woof caucus.” 

I’d like to introduce the newest member of my staff, Brady Handey. Brady will be handling all of our canine related policies and will be my go to pup on the #woof caucus. #capitolhilldogs #dogsofinsta

A post shared by Rep Rick Crawford (@reprickcrawford) on Jan 5, 2017 at 10:31am PST

Senator Deb Fischer Adopts Fred

Nebraska Republican Senator Deb Fischer has adopted a goldendoodle named Fred. Fischer is a big time dog lover and misses her dogs back home. So, she adopted a nine-week-old goldendoodle in February, who will live with her staff members on the weekends while she’s in Nebraska. Fred is all over the senator’s Instagram, and clearly a very hard worker:

Fred (and Nick) wishing all Nebraskans calling my office a Happy #ValentinesDay #HeartCity #valentinenebraska #hometown #FunWithFred

A post shared by Senator Fischer (@senatorfischer) on Feb 14, 2017 at 8:21am PST

He’s even at meetings on National Puppy Day! Good work Fred:

Fred at staff meeting. Happy #nationalpuppyday

A post shared by Senator Fischer (@senatorfischer) on Mar 23, 2017 at 11:30am PDT

All of the Puppies Visit the Hill

In February, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals brought a bunch of puppies to the hill, all adoptable. Some representatives jumped on the chance to hang out with them. Here’s Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, a Democrat from California and her new friends:

Made some new animal friends here on the Hill thanks to the @ASPCA! I’m honored to fight in Congress for the well-being of animals. pic.twitter.com/EJjD6nB7wq

— Rep. Roybal-Allard (@RepRoybalAllard) February 15, 2017

Republican Congressman Tom Marino, from Pennsylvania, also stopped by:

Today, I stopped by the #PAWS4Love event hosted by the @ASPCA. pic.twitter.com/UoPSHbKR0C

— Rep. Tom Marino (@RepTomMarino) February 14, 2017

And Democratic Colorado Rep. Jared Polis had his dog selfies down:

Adopt a dog or cat today#paws4love @ASPCA pic.twitter.com/2idACR1OR0

— Jared Polis (@jaredpolis) February 14, 2017

The good news: nearly 20 animals (both dogs and cats) found homes during the event!

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Political Puppies of 2017 for National Puppy Day appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, President-elect Donald Trump made it clear that he still intends to “drain the swamp” of Washington, and House Republicans reluctantly acquiesced to his wishes by dropping a controversial ethics measure.

Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) proposed the measure on Monday, before the 115th Congress was sworn in, aimed at curtailing the power of the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog entity that investigates corruption in the House. But after a barrage of criticism from both parties, the media, and Trump (via a pair of tweets), GOP lawmakers withdrew the proposed changes.

Tuesday morning, before the new Congressional terms began, and after House Republicans adopted the measure by a 119-74 vote on Monday night, Trump voiced his disapproval of the move on Twitter:

With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2017

……..may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2017

In a meeting with Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Representative Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the majority leader, the lawmakers decided to scrap the measure. Aides with knowledge of the closed-door meeting said a combination of pressure from Trump, the media, and lawmakers from both parties who opposed Goodlatte’s proposal (which included Ryan and McCarthy) led them to renege on the measure.

“House Republicans showed their true colors last night, and reversing their plans to destroy the Office of Congressional Ethics will not obscure their clear contempt for ethics in the People’s House,” Nancy Pelosi (R-CA), the minority leader, said in a statement. The Office of Congressional Ethics was formed as a check on House corruption under Pelosi’s leadership in 2008, when Democrats controlled the chamber.

Lawmakers from both parties have been indicted, with a handful sent to prison, as a result of investigations from the body. But lawmakers from both parties have also opposed its aggressive pursuit of complaints over the past few years, and its investigations that could cost lawmakers millions of dollars to deflect. After the Office of Congressional Ethics finds probable cause to investigate a lawmaker, the House Ethics Committee, which is staffed by lawmakers, decides to pursue a probe further.

The proposed changes would allow the Ethics Committee to shut down investigations by the independent Office of Congressional Ethics. House leadership and Trump, while agreeing the Office of Congressional Ethics needs reform, thought other GOP priorities–like overhauling the Affordable Care Act–took precedence over removing power from an independent body meant to root out corruption.

“After eight years of operation, many members believe the Office of Congressional Ethics is in need of reform to protect due process and ensure it is operating according to its stated mission,” Ryan, who opposed the proposal to gut the ethics office, said in a statement. “I want to make clear that this House will hold its members to the highest ethical standards and the Office will continue to operate independently to provide public accountability to Congress.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did House Republicans Withdraw Their Ethics Measure? appeared first on Law Street.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced a bill on Tuesday that would fine lawmakers for photographing or recording events in the chamber, in what is likely a direct response to a June sit-in staged by Democrats. After the House cut the CSPAN video feed during the sit-in, which was a response to the House refusing to take up a gun-control bill, the Democratic lawmakers pulled out their phones, took photographs, and live streamed the protest on Periscope, garnering millions of views.

The new rules “will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people’s work,” Ryan’s  spokeswoman said in a statement. First violations will incur a $500 fine–deducted from the guilty lawmaker’s salary–and subsequent breaches will lead to a $2,500 fine. The next Congress will vote on the bill on January 3, and lawmakers from either party can propose amendments to the 34-page bill before that date.

Led by Georgia Representative John Lewis, a Democrat, the 25-hour sit-in was a response to Ryan’s refusal to allow a vote on gun control measures proposed after the Orlando nightclub shooting. While most happenings in the chamber are streamed by CSPAN, Ryan effectively shut off the cameras when he called for recess after Lewis and dozens of other lawmakers began the demonstration. To ensure the public still had a window into the chamber, the participants used their phones to live-stream the event, and CSPAN picked up the feed. The movement was referred to as #NoBillNoBreak on social media.

After Ryan, who received plenty of flack from GOP lawmakers after failing to respond to the sit-in, announced the bill, Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA), tweeted his reaction:

Dear @HouseGOP, you can fine me & @HouseDemocrats all the way into bankruptcy for #gunviolence sit-in, but we will always speak for victims.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) December 26, 2016

Some experts say that the rules could potentially violate Article 1 of the Constitution. Mike Stern, a former lawyer for the nonpartisan House counsel’s office, told Politico that the Constitution “gives the House the authority to discipline members; I have never heard of anything where an officer of the House was given that authority.” Rather than have fellow lawmakers handle disciplinary action, Ryan’s bill would grant the House Sergeant-at-Arms unilateral authority. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), responded by saying the bill’s language “appears to raise constitutional concerns.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Lawmakers May Be Fined if They Take Photographs in the Chamber appeared first on Law Street.

For the first time in nearly two decades, the state of Alabama might implement a lottery system in order to pay for basic services that it currently cannot afford.

In a video released yesterday, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley announced, “the state of Alabama has not and cannot at this time pay for the most basic services that we must provide to our people.”

He continued, “the time has come for us to find a permanent solution. This solution will provide funding that we can count on year after year without ever having to raise your taxes or put one more Band-Aid on our state’s money problems.”

BREAKING:We need your help solving our funding crisis.I’m giving you the opportunity to vote on a Statewide Lottery. https://t.co/BLzE3bOXLP

— Gov. Robert Bentley (@GovernorBentley) July 27, 2016

The lottery could bring in $225 million annually, a steady revenue that would help alleviate the state’s reliance on borrowing money and using one-time money to fill the gap in Alabama’s dismal finances. Bentley said the revenue would be applied to General Fund programs like services for law enforcement, the mentally ill, children, and “those in the most need.”

State lawmakers have tried cutting “wasteful” spending, shifting the management of Medicaid to the private sector, and borrowing money, and a proposed, but rejected, tax plan–but those efforts have still not been enough to fix the financial problem.

Bentley said he wants the voters to decide whether or not a lottery should be implemented to fix Alabama’s financial situation, which means the issue would appear on the Nov. 8 ballot. However, in order for that to happen, the Legislature would have to approve the amendment by Aug. 24 with a three-fifths vote in both the House and Senate.

With less than a month until the date the amendment would have to be approved by, it doesn’t seem like the Alabama governor has made any plans to get the ball rolling. Though he just made the video announcement Wednesday, he has not provided any other details on a special session which would have to be called in order to create the amendment.

State representatives and senators from Alabama took to the proposal differently. Rep. John Knight (D-Montgomery) chairman of the Alabama House Black Caucus, said he was disturbed that Bentley had not talked about the lottery proposal with him or anyone in the Caucus.

“It seems like everything that is being done now is being done behind closed doors,” Knight said.

Acting House Speaker Victor Gaston (R-Mobile) shared those sentiments, saying in a statement, “the governor has not outlined his plan to legislators in any detail, nor, to my knowledge, has he even set a concrete start date for the special session, so it is difficult to comment with so little information at hand.” He continued, “I hope that the governor reaches out to lawmakers over the next several weeks in order to seek their input on any lottery proposal that comes forward and to do the prep work that is necessary for any special session to be successful.”

Others, like Rep. Craig Ford, (D-Gadsden), leader of the Democratic minority in the Alabama House of Representatives, do not believe Bentley’s plan will work.

“A lottery will do nothing for this year’s Medicaid shortfall, and at best will be nothing more than a band aid for the General Fund that will leave us right back where we are now in just a few years,” he said in a statement. “The lottery is a one-shot deal, and a lottery for the General Fund will become, as it has in other states, a victim to legislative shell games; it will become nothing more than a slush fund for legislators.”

.@RepCraigFord says his proposed lottery must fund scholarships, and will not save the state’s budgets: https://t.co/yxGV9vUygK #alpolitics

— AL Reporter (@ALReporter) July 27, 2016

Sen. Quinton Ross (D-Montgomery), minority leader in the Alabama Senate, agrees with Bentley’s lottery proposal.

“These gaming dollars can provide stability and long-term economic streams for many of our General Fund and Education Trust Fund needs.”

Until Bentley schedules a special session, it’s unclear whether or not the lottery will come to the Crimson Tide state.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could a Lottery Save Alabama’s Lack of State Funding? appeared first on Law Street.

Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives on Monday that asks Congress to “recognize magic as a rare and valuable art form and national treasure.” To clarify, this is the House of Representatives, part of the United States Congress. That’s not to be confused with the Magical Congress of the United States of America, which is unicameral, not to mention fictional.

The full text of the resolution, which is recommended reading for anyone who needs their heart warmed, uses some personal anecdotes to illustrate the power of magic. We’re introduced to Rebecca Brown, a Portland, Oregon resident who was so inspired by a David Copperfield performance that she returned to her unfulfilled dream of dancing. The resolution argues that magic is a motivational force for many, and transcends culture as an art form. Ms. Brown’s epiphany isn’t the only mention of David Copperfield in the resolution. Out of thirty-three ‘whereas’ clauses arguing that the resolution be passed, eleven of them mention the magician or his charitable organization specifically. This resolution is one third David Copperfield, so it’s reasonable to assume that Representative Sessions is a fan.

The resolution also makes mention of Wylie, Texas Mayor Eric Hogue, a man who discovered magic as a young child, and “continues to use those skills to teach elementary school students about the different roles and responsibilities of local government” While the description makes it seem like Hogue pulls a discretionary budget out of a hat to teach children all about the city council, videos show him performing fun and simple card tricks, and pulling a bouquet from some scarves.

The actual goal of the resolution is a bit vague: if passed, it would essentially state that the House of Representatives “supports efforts to make certain that magic is preserved, understood, and promulgated.” While its intentions seem goodhearted, the bill, sponsored entirely by House Republicans, has some Democrat lawmakers confused:

Breaking: @HouseGOP believes in magic but not climate change. https://t.co/2uDhitDMnN

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) March 15, 2016

While nothing in the resolution indicates its sponsors believe that magic is real, Representative Takano (D-CA) illustrates that these legislators are willing to officially recognize magic as a valuable art form while being unwilling to acknowledge the impact of climate change. Representative Sessions has a record of staunch opposition to renewable energy investments and efforts to curb CO2 production. But just because larger issues loom does not mean that magic isn’t important in its own right.

Having been referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, the resolution has yet to be voted on–but magic aficionados around the country are holding out hope that their craft will be given recognition in Washington.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House of Representatives to Decide if Magic is a National Treasure appeared first on Law Street.

Today, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) dropped out of the race to fill the Speaker of the House position being vacated by current Speaker John Boehner. This came as a surprise to many, and there were reports of “audible crying” on the Hill. But, on the bright side, the Twittersphere took it on as fodder for some pretty entertaining reactions. Check out some of the best Twitter reactions to McCarthy dropping out of contention in the slideshow below:

Excellent Gif Use

House GOP caucus, right now: pic.twitter.com/oIwkuDHyzq

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) October 8, 2015

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kevin McCarthy Drops out of Speaker Race: Twitter Reacts appeared first on Law Street.

News broke this morning that Speaker of the House John Boehner will be resigning from Congress at the end of October. While some are rejoicing that the congressman, perhaps best known for his slightly orange visage and very active tear ducts, is stepping down, it’s also indicative of the identity crisis that is threatening to consume the Republican Party.

Boehner has long clashed with the more conservative, tea party side of his party. Most recently, members of the Freedom Caucus, some of Boehner’s biggest antagonists, threatened to oust him from the leadership if he didn’t make defunding Planned Parenthood a priority in the ongoing budget fight. This isn’t the first time they’ve tried–this has been a long-waged battle. But if they were successful this time around, Boehner was most likely going to have to rely on liberal support to keep his seat, which would be both an unpredictable and embarrassing situation.

But, by stepping down, Boehner also gains some freedom. No longer held hostage by the fact that he may lose a seat he no longer wants, Boehner now has the ability to advocate for a bill that will avoid a government shutdown. A clean spending bill, without the Planned Parenthood provisions, seems likely to pass. A Boehner aide stated about his decision:

The Speaker believes putting members through prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable damage to the institution. He is proud of what this majority has accomplished, and his Speakership, but for the good of the Republican Conference and the institution, he will resign the Speakership and his seat in Congress, effective October 30.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House before Boehner took the stage for a press conference around 10:45 this morning, pointing out that Boehner’s resignation is indicative of the struggles that the Republican Party is facing right now.

No one is entirely sure who is going to take over Boehner’s seat. Right now, the most likely candidate seems to be Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the highest ranking Republican in Congress after Boehner. But McCarthy falls more in line with Republican establishment than the more conservative members trying to oust Boehner. Whether or not there will be a challenge from the right will be interesting to watch–this battle could get incredibly divisive. Given the infighting currently taking place in the Republican Party over who will be the 2016 nominee, it will be interesting to see if the battle for the House leadership gets just as messy.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Boehner Resigns: Another Establishment Republican Bites the Dust appeared first on Law Street.

Treating people when they’re already sick is like beating back invaders who have already breached your defenses. In either scenario, prevention through good defense saves money, time, and lives. But when it comes to boosting our nation’s wellness defenses through public health spending, America falls short.

When it comes to health, concerns abound that we’re wasting money, time, and lives by spending too much on treatment and recovery and not enough on prevention. Public health interventions like smoking cessation programs and disaster preparedness initiatives save lives. The more we learn about the power of these interventions, the more experts call to keep them afloat with better funding. Spending a few dollars to get a person to quit smoking makes more sense than spending thousands of dollars to try to treat their lung cancer several years down the road. Preparing for a natural disaster beforehand is preferable to picking up the pieces afterwards.

So what is public health? It’s something that aims to keep you alive as long as possible. From preventing diseases to preparing for disasters, public health programs keep a wary eye out for threats and then help populations avoid or mitigate them. For example, if data shows a high diabetes risk for a certain population, public health programs will target that population with preventative messages about diet and exercise. Public health departments might also help local school systems prepare for potential natural disasters, like Florida does with its Children’s Disaster Preparedness Program.

Read on to learn about public health spending in the United States, and where we might need to invest some more time and money.

Where’s the money?

In April, the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) released its report Investing in America’s Health: A State-by-State Look at Public Health Funding and Key Health Facts. The report highlights many ways America falls short on public health spending. They say America’s public health system “has been chronically underfunded for decades.” In Why We Don’t Spend Enough on Public Health, author David Hemenway says this is because the benefits of public health spending today aren’t seen until potentially far in the future. Governments and politicians want to see the benefits of their investments in the present day, so they favor spending on medical treatment and other immediately fulfilling initiatives.

Here are some of the key findings:

Public Health Spending is Actually Shrinking

According to TFAH, when you adjust for inflation, public health spending in 2013 has sunk 10 percent from 2009. Many simply don’t see the benefits of spending on public health programs that yield intangible, future benefits when money could be spent on initiatives that produce immediate results like transportation or construction projects.

All States are Not Created Equal

States vary widely in what they spend on public health as funding is determined by the set-up of each state’s unique public health department. Indiana came in at a low of $15.14 per person, while Alaska spends $50.09 per person. This could be why health levels also vary widely from state to state.

Communities Aren’t Prepared for Public Health Emergencies

Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement Funding helps communities respond to natural disasters, epidemics, and outbreaks. It was backed by $919 million in 2005. In 2013, it was supported by just $643 million.

Hospitals Aren’t Prepared for Public Health Emergencies

The Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) gives healthcare facilities funding to beef up their preparedness measures. Funding for this program has been slashed by almost half, dropping from $515 million in 2004 to $255 million in 2015.

It’s estimated that 2/3 of all deaths in the United States result from chronic diseases typically linked to behaviors like diet or substance abuse. These diseases could be prevented by well funded intervention programs to decrease the behaviors that eventually lead to chronic diseases. Public health spending could save Americans millions in treatments for preventable diseases. Likewise public health under-spending could be costing us more than we’re saving.

In this video, the American Public Health Association outlines financial returns on every dollar of public health spending for different activities:

The above video states that every dollar spent on fluoride in our water supply could save $40 in dental care costs and that a dollar spent on nutrition education could save $10 in health care costs. The main point? Public health programs make for a smart investment.

The Consequences of Meagre Public Health Budgets

So, America spends too much money on treatment and not enough on prevention. The results aren’t pretty. In Integrating Public Health and Personal Care in a Reformed US Health Care System, authors Chernichovsky and Leibowitz write,

Compared with other developed countries, the United States has an inefficient and expensive health care system with poor outcomes and many citizens who are denied access.

The State of U.S. Health, 1990-2010 report put the U.S. up against other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (O.E.C.D.), a program that advocates to improve economic and social outcomes. Since 1990, the U.S. has fallen in rankings for both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. In 1990, the U.S. stood at the number 20 spot for life expectancy.  By 2010, it was down to number 27.  In 1990, the U.S. also enjoyed the number 14 spot for healthy life expectancy. The year 2010 found us in the 26th spot.

Under-spending in public health doesn’t just lead to generally poor health, it also impedes our ability to respond to emergencies. Assistant professor at the Harvard Business School, Gautam Mukunda, referred to Ebola as a “wake-up call” for the state of U.S. health preparedness. In Ebola as a Wake-Up Call he wrote,

Ebola may serve as a badly needed wake-up call about something the public health and biosecurity community has been banging the drum about for years: the U.S. has massively underinvested in public health.

Mukunda says the Ebola situation highlighted the measly number of extreme disease cases our U.S. hospitals can handle. Hospitals have decreased their capacity for extreme cases to increase their efficiency, only to lose the ability to treat patients when rare diseases strike. Although the need for extreme treatments arises only occasionally, hospitals should always be prepared for them. But with limited funding, it’s hard to be prepared for the unlikely “worst case scenarios.”

How does the future look?

The good news: The Senate finally passed a joint budget resolution after a five year absence of agreement.

The bad news:  Their budget slahes non-defense government spending by about $500 billion over the next 10 years.

The budget cuts spell trouble for discretionary educational public health programs. From disease prevention to health care worker training, programs to promote good health may suffer across the board.

In an APHA press release opposing the measure, Georges Benjamin, executive director of APHA, says,

Simply put, our federal, state and local public health agencies will not be able to do their jobs to protect the health of the American people if these drastic cuts are enacted.

The budget would also annihilate the Affordable Care Act, including the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a program that focused on moving America towards a preventative health model by funding prevention communications, research, surveillance, immunizations, tobacco cessation programs, health-care training, and more.

The resolution isn’t yet a binding law, but indicates a set of collective and alarming priorities that steer America farther from the path of an integrated, preventative public health system. The Appropriations Committee still has to draft the spending bills, so there’s room for opposition. President Obama for one said he’ll veto bills following the restrictive budget.

Evidence to Inform the Future

According to the article, Evidence Links Increases In Public Health Spending To Declines In Preventable Deaths, published in Health Affairs, mortality rates fall anywhere from 1.1 – 6.9 percent for every 10 percent uptick in public health spend. The researchers made observations over thirteen years and found that the localities with the highest upsurges in public health spending had the most significant reductions in preventable deaths. The relationship held true in multiple causes of death and across different demographics. While the study is only a correlation, the linkage presents compelling evidence for the death-decreasing value of public health spending. The researchers believe a lack of substantial evidence for the ROI of public health campaigns may have hindered spending in the past, and their report takes one step towards getting that evidence.

The Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) advocates for an America with increased core public health spending. They also recommend ways to spend the money correctly. They call for a solid public health foundation for all populations in all states so everyone can be healthy no matter where they live. After that’s established, they advise investing in strong, evidence-backed public health programs and efforts to fortify emergency preparedness. Finally, they believe public health expenditures should be completely transparent and accessible to the American public.

Experts at a recent forum of National Public Health Week looked past mere spending to consider the future of public health and consider novel ways of approaching health to make America a healthier nation. The speakers want to stretch health thinking beyond the doctor’s office to focus on environmental and lifestyle factors that promote well-being like employment, housing, education, and even racism.

These experts dream of an improved, 360 degree view of public health. But sadly, their dreams need funding to become reality. If we continue on this path, it will be very hard to become a more healthful nation.

Resources

Primary 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Prevention and Public Health Fund

Additional

American Journal of Public Health: Integrating Public Health and Personal Care in a Reformed US Health Care System

The New Yorker: Why America is Losing the Health Race

Harvard Business School: Ebola as a Wake Up Call

Public Health Newswire: NPHW Forum: Creating Healthiest Nation Requires Addressing Social Determinants of Health

The Trust for America’s Health: Investing in America’s Health

The Washington Post: Senate Passes Budget Even as Impasse on Spending Continues

Public Health Newswire: House Adopts ‘Devastating’ Budget Agreement

Public Health Newswire: Senate Passes Budget that Batters Public Health

American Public Health Association: APHA Calls Budget Agreement Devastating

The Trust for America’s Health: Investing in America’s Health: A State-by-State Look at Public Health Funding & Key Health Facts

Health Affairs: Evidence Links Increases in Public Health Spending to Declines in Preventable Deaths

The National Priorities Project: Military Spending in the United States

New England Journal of Medicine: Why We Don’t Spend Enough on Public Health

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Spending Enough on Public Health? 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.

In case you missed our first post about Rep. John Dingell’s breakout summer on Twitter, you’re in luck! He was just as funny and smart during the August recess, too. It’s been clear for years that all of those congressional reps who haven’t served 30 terms should probably take some cues from the Dean of the House. Who would’ve guessed one of those cues would be on social media?

Looking forward to finding out the next moves of a House that could easily screw up a one car funeral. The inmates are running the asylum.

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 1, 2014

For those playing along at home via @cspan, drink every time GOP member references children & “self-deportation” and keeps a straight face. — John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 1, 2014

Just took a “selfie” at the W. Wayne Family Health fair. Glad our young folks are embracing a DIY attitude. #NHCW2014 pic.twitter.com/mBrcTc5kW9

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 14, 2014

My commitment to making sure young people stay interested & active in their government? Flawless. pic.twitter.com/zNN4p7Dfg4 — John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 21, 2014

I see no problem with the suit. pic.twitter.com/ZFFt75FedU

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 28, 2014

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [John Dingell via Twitter]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post August Recess is No Match for Rep. John Dingell on Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

John Boehner says the House of Representatives is suing President Obama for not faithfully executing the laws he has sworn to uphold. The suit claims that when Obama delayed the employer mandate for ObamaCare, he changed the law, something which can only be done by Congress. But this might not be Boehner’s only motive to sue. It sounds a bit implausible, considering Boehner has no love for the President, but he may be suing Obama to avoid impeaching him. And if that’s the case, it’s a downright genius move.

Boehner himself has said impeachment is not being considered, but he needs to silence the calls from other Congressman and noisy pundits in his party. Impeachment is a bad option for the Republicans for a few reasons. One is that Boehner knows that even if the House did impeach Obama, the Senate would never go along with it. Also, as unpopular as Obama is, he’s still more popular than the House of Representatives. The same thing happened the last time Republicans impeached a president–President Bill Clinton. The whole ordeal led to the Speaker of the House having to resign and Republicans losing the midterm elections. Boehner seems to know that it is a terrible political move to impeach the president.

But perhaps the biggest reason Boehner wants to silence the calls for impeachment is that the Democrats are using impeachment speculation to fuel their fundraising efforts. It’s an election year where the left’s base did not have much to be excited about, but the impeachment talks have riled them up. For example, you’d think that FOX news would be very excited about Obama impeachment rumors, and would be covering the issue far more than any other news organization. In fact, they have mentioned impeachment a respectable 95 times so far this month. But MSNBC, the liberal bastion, has mentioned impeachment a whopping 448 times. Both organizations claim to deliver unbiased news, but I think we all know that FOX and MSNBC are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and the fact that the liberal news station mentions impeachment so much more shows how they want to get their base riled up. Boehner knows every time a Republican calls for impeachment on TV, it becomes a sound bite at the next Democratic Party fundraiser.

The lawsuit is also largely symbolic. It is doubtful that a court will say the House has standing to sue, and even if the House somehow wins the suit, the result would just be that Obama would immediately have to enforce the employer mandate. But odds are the case wouldn’t be decided until after the mandate begins enforcement in 2015 anyways.

There’s nothing for Boehner to gain legally, but there’s a lot to gain politically. This allows him to show he is doing something for those calling for impeachment. It allows conservative representatives to go back to their districts and tell their constituents that they have taken action against Obama. It is a symbolic gesture against Obama that will come to nothing in the long run–exactly what Boehner needs right now. This move also buys Boehner precious time. He can argue that impeachment would be pointless before the court makes it ruling. He’d be able to stretch out that excuse until the 2016 elections, at which point the whole impeachment argument would become null and void anyways.

Boehner has let the conservative end of his party control him before. For example, he could not get them in line nine moths ago, leading to a government shutdown. This lawsuit is his way of asserting control as the Speaker of the House. While the Democrats will still be able to fundraise by slamming the lawsuit, it gives substance to Boehner’s claim that impeachment is not being considered. The media will also focus on the lawsuit instead of impeachment rumors. This lawsuit has allowed Boehner to appease his conservative base, while limiting Democratic fundraising talking points. He found the narrowest of lines and is balancing on it beautifully. It will only take a slight breeze from his right to knock him off, but until that happens, this is an excellent move on Boehner’s part.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Speaker John Boehner via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Politically Genius: Boehner’s Suit Against Obama appeared first on Law Street.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) published an op-ed in the New York Times last week that points out a major problem with our nation’s government–the House of Representatives doesn’t actually represent the American people. Schumer is right, and our electoral system deserves much of the blame.

As Schumer mentioned in his piece, roughly a third of Americans are right-leaning conservatives, a third are left-leaning liberals, and a third are independents with moderate views. Schumer explained that because voter turnout is so low in primaries, the extreme ends of both parties or, the “third of a third” decide who wins in primary elections. The Tea Party is a prime example of this idea in practice. Roughly 10 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Partiers, so if the House of Representatives was truly representative, the Tea Party would have 10 percent of the seats. But because they are way more active in elections than more moderate Republicans, 144 of 435 current congressman, or 33.1 percent, support the Tea Party. It would be easy to just blame this problem on those who don’t vote. Unfortunately, the problem is much more complex than that. According to his op-ed, Sen. Schumer’s proposal to reform our primary system is to institute a “top-two” primary. In this system, all candidates run in one primary and all voters vote, regardless of party. The top two candidates then enter a run-off, or general election. This means that you may have a general election with two Democrats, or two Republicans, but no matter what, they will represent the district’s two favorite choices. However, this reform may not be enough.

The roots of the problem stem from gerrymandering and our first-past-the-post, single member congressional districts. Let’s start with the problem of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Imagine a state that votes roughly 70 percent Democrat and 30 percent Republican. Under any definition of fair, roughly 70 percent of the state’s representatives should be Democrats and 30 percent Republicans. But this hardly ever happens. For example, I used an approximation of Massachusetts’s party breakdown for the description above, yet Democrats hold all nine of its congressional seats. Thirty percent of Massachusetts is not represented in Congress. This occurs because our congressional districts have only one member and are elected by FPTP, meaning the first candidate to break the 50 percent barrier wins the one seat and all those who voted for the loser are not represented.

Because the 30 percent of voters who are Republican are not concentrated in any one congressional district enough to break the 50 percent barrier, they have no representation. This may have been aided by gerrymandering–the process of drawing districts to favor a political party. But even without gerrymandering, Republicans in Massachusetts would be lucky if they won one or two seats. Where gerrymandering really amplifies the problem is when it creates completely uncompetitive districts, meaning one party is all but guaranteed to win it. This makes the primary election much more important than the general election. This brings us back to the issue raised by Sen. Schumer–the more extreme candidate often wins these primary elections, and then succeeds in an unchallenged general election. This allows the extreme 10 percent of voters to decide who represents the whole district. This is how our House of Representatives has become so polarized, and a terrible representation of the views of many Americans.

So, what is the solution to this giant mess? Unfortunately, Schumer’s solution has not been proven to work in the states that have already implemented it. This problem requires a more drastic solution, something called proportional representation. A detailed plan for a proportional representation system is described by the organization FairVote, but I will give you a simple version. Under this new hypothetical plan, there would no longer be single member congressional districts, but larger districts that would have either three or five representatives. The representatives would be elected using ranked choice voting, a method in which voters rank their favorite candidates. How exactly this would work is described here. But essentially, in these three or five seat districts, the minority party would have the chance for its voice to be heard. In a five-seat district, where exactly 60 percent of voters are Democrat and 40 percent are Republican, three seats will go to the Democratic Party and two to the Republicans. See the infographic below to see how this plan would impact a state with a party breakdown similar to Massachusetts.

Proportional representation is a system that distributes seats in a much fairer way than FPTP does. It will get moderates back in Congress and increase voter turnout, because voters will feel like they can actually elect someone who represents them. It will fix the House of Representatives by making its name match its definition–the House will finally represent the American people.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [PBS NewsHour via Flickr]

Editor’s note: The author of this piece previously interned at FairVote.

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Fix the House of Representatives appeared first on Law Street.