Skip to content

Politically Rational

  • Home
  • Blog
  • About
  • Contact
  • Gerrymandering is Wrong

    Gerrymandering is wrong.

    On April 29th, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a voting map in Louisiana on the grounds that it used race to create congressional districts.  This ruling explicitly allows for gerrymandering on a political basis, stating states “must ‘disentangle race from politics’ by proving ‘that the former drove a district’s lines.’”

    A vast majority of Americans believe that gerrymandering is wrong.  According to a Rasmussen poll, 88% of voters consider it a serious problem.  However, a poll by Politico shows both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of redistricting to allow their side to win.

    I invite civil, bipartisan discussion on this post.

    In July of 2025, President Trump explicitly called on the state of Texas to redraw their congressional maps.  Texas ultimately did pass new districts prompting California to pass their own initiative, which was passed by the state’s voters in November.

    While Texas and California grabbed the largest headlines, many other states have followed suit including
    Alabama, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Florida, Louisiana, and Virginia with Maryland, New York, and others discussing the possibility, or having voted on changes.

    Historically, the Supreme Court has used the “Purcell Principle” to try to discourage last minute changes by federal courts to elections.  In a Wisconsin case in 2020, Brett Kavanaugh wrote: “It is one thing for state legislatures to alter their own election rules in the late innings and to bear the responsibility for any unintended consequences. It is quite another thing for a federal district court to swoop in and alter carefully considered and democratically enacted state election rules when an election is imminent.”

    In Louisiana, absentee voting had already begun when a new map was introduced and 40,000 ballots will be discarded.   In the case of Missouri, the state Supreme Court upheld the new map while the Supreme Court of Virginia struck down their effort and the U.S. Supreme Court let the decision stand.  While that order was unsigned, it was also not a major surprise as Article 1; Section 4 of the Constitution gives the power of elections to the states.

    As states continue to take action to change electoral maps, or contemplate changes to elections laws, I see no reason to expect these sweeping changes to slow down in the months ahead.  Rather, I would like to discuss options for reigning in gerrymandering, as I reiterate that gerrymandering is wrong.

    Revisit Apportionment

    According to the Constitution, Article I; Section 2, “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative”.  This puts an upper bound on the size of Congress, but no lower bound.  While the size of the United States House of Representatives was set to 435 in 1911, the Reapportionment Act of 1929 which remains in effect today kept the size of the House unchanged.

    As I have mentioned in the past, one major point of contention from the Anti-Federalists when the Constitution was being debated was the size of Congress, particularly the House of Representatives.  In Cato’s Letter V from 1787, it was argued “that the number of representatives are too few”.  In Federalist No. 55, James Madison referenced the attacks on the number of representatives saying of opponents, “so small a number of representatives will be an unsafe depositary of the public interests” and “they will not possess a proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents.”

    Moreover, Madison’s original draft of the Bill of Rights introduced to Congress stated “there would not be more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons”.  As of 2023, there were an estimated 761,169 constituents for every representative.

    Greatly increasing the number of Representatives would make it much more difficult to gerrymander, as it would be more difficult to put each political minority into a larger group of the majority.

    Create Rules for Redistricting

    Stopping gerrymandering is a notoriously difficult problem.  I don’t know exactly what rules should be in place for redistricting, but a few come to mind:

    • Redistricting must be within one year of the Census release
    • Redistricting cannot be within six months of the start of voting – and define voting, as the case referenced previously in Virginia ultimately relied on that definition.
    • Require the creation of independent commissions to help mitigate the problem.

    Tell me your ideas to combat gerrymandering! 

     

    Sources:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/29/us/politics/supreme-court-voting-rights-act.html?unlocked_article_code=1.jVA.6vl4.o78pTV4mMmJZ&smid=url-share

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf

    Gerrymandering Problem ‘Very Serious,’ Voters Say – Rasmussen Reports®

    The POLITICO Poll: Redistricting fight has voters supporting partisan gerrymandering – POLITICO

    Trump tells Texas Republicans to redistrict to help keep GOP House majority | AP News

    GOP wins Texas redistricting fight despite Democratic walkout attempt | Fox News

    Newsom signs California redistricting plan that could tilt 5 House seats toward Democrats – CBS News

    California voters pass Prop 50 to redraw the state’s congressional maps, CBS News projects – CBS Sacramento

    Alabama lawmakers approve new US House primary, if courts allow it | AP News

    Missouri Senate OKs redistricting and initiative petition plans | STLPR

    The latest redistricting salvo: North Carolina gerrymanders out House Democrat – POLITICO

    Republicans notch redistricting win in Ohio — but it could have been worse for Democrats – POLITICO

    Tennessee approves new congressional map that dissolves majority Black district – CBS News

    DeSantis unveils new GOP-friendly congressional map on eve of special session – POLITICO

    Louisiana lawmakers advance new 5-1 congressional map that favors Republicans – CBS News

    Virginia votes for redistricting, giving Democrats a boost : NPR

    Maryland lawmakers reject effort to redraw congressional map to boost Democrats | AP News

    New York lawmakers eye multiple redistricting amendments – POLITICO

    Purcell principle | Election Law, US Supreme Court, Purcell v. Gonzalez, & Voters | Britannica

    Supreme Court faces new criticism for changing redistricting law close to 2026 elections

    Louisiana to delay House primaries after Supreme Court redistricting ruling

    Louisiana lawmakers advance new 5-1 congressional map that favors Republicans – CBS News

    Missouri Supreme Court hands GOP a win in redistricting battle – POLITICO

    Court rejects Virginia redistricting in a blow to Democrats : NPR

    Supreme Court rejects Virginia Democrats’ bid to revive new congressional map – CBS News

    The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

    Redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections – Ballotpedia

    State Voting Laws Roundups | Brennan Center for Justice

    Apportionment Act of 1911 – Wikipedia

    Reapportionment Act of 1929 – Wikipedia

    The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

    Cato_V(1).pdf

    untitled

    The Bill of Rights: A Transcription | National Archives

    United States congressional apportionment – Wikipedia

    1808.08905

    1260127.pdf

    Can independent commissions create fair voting districts? | Harvard Kennedy School

    May 19, 2026
  • One Year of Posting

    According to Facebook, today marks one year since I created a Facebook page, and therefore this website. That really comes as little surprise as my first political post was shortly after the second inauguration of President Trump, and I created the page

    𝐈 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥, 𝐛𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭.

    The first few times I wrote something it was because I was frustrated with the political environment. I was frustrated that Congress was not stepping up to fulfill their obligations. Above all else, I was frustrated that people were simply attacking each other rather than listening to one another.

    I have said it many times over the past year, but I still firmly believe that the ideologies of 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬, 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭.

    Politicians in search of soundbites and campaign slogans have long sought to vastly oversimplify the details of the proposals they support. Bills in Congress that are thousands of pages long are often reduced to a small number of talking points; in reality, they can encompass hundreds or thousands of different political positions and represent long-debated compromises while being drafted.

    𝐈 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

    Over the past year I have written around 50 posts in total. I have read a number of books about politics and history. I have done my best to elicit dialogue between left and right.

    Moreover, I have thought about what purpose I have in writing my thoughts on a regular basis. I would love to see more discussion and 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞.

    However, at the end of the day, a large part of the reason I write is to be introspective. Many days 𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝, but I have come to appreciate doing so for my own sake.

    I am currently reading the book Moon and Sixpence by William Somerset Maugham. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it, but I do find many passages in his book resonate very well with me, and this explanation felt very familiar:

    “It is a salutary discipline to consider the vast number of books that are written, the fair hopes with which their authors see them published, and the fate which awaits them. What chance is there that any book will make its way among that multitude? And the successful books are but the successes of a season. Heaven knows what pains the author has been at, what bitter experiences he has endured and what heartache suffered, to give some chance reader a few hours’ relaxation or to while away the tedium of a journey. And if I may judge from the reviews, many of these books are well and carefully written; much thought has gone to their composition; to some even has been given the anxious labour of a lifetime. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐈 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬; 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞, 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬.”

    Thank you to everyone who has read my thoughts over the past year. I have appreciated the opportunity to scream into the void and release the burden of my thoughts, and I look forward to continuing to do so.

    March 25, 2026
  • RE: Bondi

    A few weeks ago, I wrote about Attorney General Pam Bondi’s hearing before a House Oversight Committee, particularly regarding her combative attitude and refusal to answer any questions she didn’t like.

    Contempt of Congress

    I wrote my representation in Congress on to ask for their opinions on February 17th, and I would like to take a moment to share the message I sent, and the replies I received from each of Senators Grassley and Ernst, and Representative Nunn.

    𝐈 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥, 𝐛𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭.

    Zach Nunn responded first, on March 4th. Representative Nunn did not mention the Congressional testimony one single time and stated only that he agreed with me that those involved with Epstein need to be held accountable and that transparency is not optional. While I certainly agree there should be transparency, I do not see him fighting to release the rest of the files and, 𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐦𝐲 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝.

    Joni Ernst replied next, on March 10th. Senator Ernst did mention that some people were unsatisfied with the release of the Epstein files thus far, and stated simply that AG Bondi testified, but 𝐬𝐡𝐞, 𝐭𝐨𝐨, 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐦𝐲 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝.

    Finally, I received an answer from Chuck Grassley on March 12th, nearly a month after my inquiry. In line with his peers, 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐆 𝐁𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢’𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲. He did, however, lean very much into the divisive rhetoric from the White house, stating that the Department of Justice under the Biden Administration was “𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝” and suggested that under Pam Bondi, a “𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐲”.

    Please read the responses from our members of Congress here in Iowa and let me know what you think of their “answers”. Let me know what responses you have received, and what questions you have been asking.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    March 16, 2026
  • More Thoughts on Iran

    Again, I would like to start out by saying; above all else, I really hope this situation in the Middle East can somehow work towards bringing lasting peace and stability to the region.

    I invite civil, bipartisan discussion on this post.

    I had some more brief thoughts on the decision by Donald Trump to strike Iran:

    • Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, which came with significant risk; namely the risk that Iran would try to develop nuclear weaponry.
    • Claims that the United States gave Iran money in that deal are deeply misleading, as the U.S. unfroze Iranian assets – they did not hand money to Iran.
    • Donald Trump and his administration claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program was completely obliterated. The headline literally reads, “Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News”
    • The Trump administration briefed Congressional staff stating that Iran was not preparing to launch strikes against U.S. interests.

    Moreover, I am unclear what the actual objective  is:

    • Donald Trump suggested regime change by telling the Iranian people “take back your country”.
    • Pete Hegseth said it is “not a so-called regime change war”
    • President Trump suggested the goal was to stop Iranian nuclear weapons programs – which, again, was said to be completely obliterated.

    Do you want regime change?  Are we targeting missiles, or nuclear weapons capabilities, or the navy?  Are we trying to establish a new government?  

    I certainly do not fully trust Iranian government’s word on civilian casualties, but the report that a school was hit during these strikes is concerning.  However, it certainly does not seem like Pete Hegseth is concerned about following international law and minimizing civilian harm when he said:

    “No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy-building exercise, no politically-correct wars. We fight to win.”

    I don’t know exactly what Secretary Hegseth is referring to, but it certainly sounds ominous.  I, for one, would like to believe the United States will follow the Geneva Convention and do everything in their power to minimize collateral damage.

     

    Sources:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html?unlocked_article_code=1.QFA.RCqT.unZfRtxH9pTf&smid=url-share

    Trump’s plan for the Iran nuclear deal comes with huge risks

    Fact Check: Did the US Under Obama Give Iran $150 Billion? – Newsweek

    Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News – The White House

    https://abcnews.com/International/live-updates/iran-live-updates-israel-launches-preemptive-strike-iran/?id=130301492&entryId=130677137

    https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/28/us/politics/trump-iran-messaging-broadcasting.html?unlocked_article_code=1.QVA.X8Wl.VzkLmuqVjZlW&smid=url-share

    Hegseth defends US attack on Iran as ‘our retribution’ – ABC News

    Trump Seeks to Justify Iran War, but Stated Objectives Shift

    More Than 100 Reported Killed in Strike on Girls’ School in Iran. Here’s What We Know | TIME

    WATCH: Hegseth insists the Iran conflict is ‘not Iraq’ and is ‘not endless’ | PBS News

     

     

    March 3, 2026
  • To Declare War

    The Congress shall have the power… To declare War.

    U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8

    For the second time already this year, the United States military has launched a major operation which removed a foreign leader from power. On January 3rd, the U.S. Captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who now is in the United States awaiting trial. Now, on February 28th, the U.S. launched strikes into Iran killing their supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.

    I invite civil, bipartisan discussion on this post.

    The Maduro regime was not considered by the United States to be legitimately elected, a position made clear by the Biden Administration when they sanctioned Maduro and many of his associates and even offering a $25 million reward for information leading to his arrest.

    Military operations in Venezuela should have been authorized by Congress.

    Iran has long had tensions with the United States, have been behind a lot of strikes on U.S. forces and allies in the middle east, and have killed thousands of their own citizens who have been protesting the authoritarian government.

    Military operations in Iran should have been authorized by Congress.

    Many republicans in Congress justified the legality of the Venezuelan action by saying it was simply an extension of the Department of Justice carrying out a warrant. Now, they are simply praising this action as necessary to stop Iranian nuclear enrichment, without commenting upon the legality of the move.

    Looking at my representation in Congress:

    Zach Nunn:

    Declaring Iran at fault and saying he “doesn’t take military action lightly”.

    Chuck Grassley on X:

    “CANT HV UNPRDICTABLE LEADERSHIP IN IRAN W NUCLEAR BOMB”

    Joni Ernst:

    Thanking our service members in the region.

    I have my own thoughts on the irony of their statements but I will let you come up with your own commentary on their respective comments. Please feel free to comment your feelings.

    None of them are commenting on the legality of such an attack, either in terms of the United States Constitution, or in terms of international law.

    This operation in Iran could go well. It could lead to the protest movement feeling increased energy, renewed optimism, and international support, ultimately ushering in a new, more tolerant and open government in Iran.

    However, this operation could also backfire. Unilaterally overthrowing the Iranian regime by killing many in leadership runs a major risk of galvanizing the people against the United States, isolating our allies, and it is possible Ayatollah Khamenei is replaced by a more hardline government.

    Under no circumstances do I condone the Venezuelan or Iranian regimes but the ramifications of these actions will be long-lasting and should not have been authorized by only a single person at the helm.

    Military operations should be debated on, and authorized by, Congress.

     

    Sources:

    U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

    U.S. strikes Venezuela and says leader Maduro has been captured and flown out of the country | PBS News

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/28/world/iran-strikes-trump?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.5L6N.3H-ma-Y1Bhl5&smid=url-share

    Biden imposes new sanctions on Maduro allies in Venezuela

    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/10/world/americas/biden-bounty-nicolas-maduro.html?unlocked_article_code=1.P1A.Hw1O.Lb_B_sWRKXJZ&smid=url-share

    A historical timeline of U.S. relations with Iran | PBS News

    US confronts dangers from ‘not very good’ Iran-backed militants | Reuters

    Iran’s protest crackdown killed more than 7,000, activists say | AP News

    Top Republicans praise Venezuela operation as some lawmakers question legal authority

    Iran strikes were launched without approval from Congress, deeply dividing lawmakers | WUSF

    https://www.facebook.com/RepZachNunn/posts/pfbid02DPzw3Qww6iNSzkW445oin1cSM9JTwugWMYgb2RM1Q3jFj8QW5mVyL8qsKCBM8NZ6l

    Chuck Grassley on X: “I’m following closely what’s happening in Iran & the region Barbara + I are praying for the safety of our troops Regime change badly needed +Must stop nuclear enrichment CANT HV UNPRDICTABLE LEADERSHIP IN IRAN W NUCLEAR BOMB Pres Trump gave IRAN PLENTY OF NEGOTIABLE OPPORTUNITY” / X

    https://www.facebook.com/senjoniernst/posts/pfbid02Uomuv3hUsknjU7GaVvryTtQ9E4ecJMYJAmimBY51TFumqPheBuN7cs9boP9sRAABl

    Live updates: Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is dead after U.S., Israel attack

    Exclusive: Prior to Iran attacks, CIA assessed Khamenei could be replaced by hardline IRGC elements if killed, sources say | Reuters

    March 1, 2026
1 2 3 … 14
Next Page→

Politically Rational

This site is intended to be a civil, rational approach to discussing American Politics, regardless of party affiliation.

  • Home
  • Blog
  • About
  • Contact

Twenty Twenty-Five

Designed with WordPress