Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

Opinion

From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

U.S. Constitution

Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

Many Americans have lost faith in the basic principles and form of the Constitutional Republic, as set forth by the Founders. People are abandoning Democratic ideals to create systems that multiply offenses against Constitutional safeguards, materializing in book banning, speech-restricting, and recent attempts to enact gerrymandering that dilutes the votes of “political opponents.” This represents Democratic erosion and a trend that endangers Constitutional checks and representative governance.

First, the recent gerrymandering, legal precedent, and founding principles should be reexamined, specifically, around the idea that our Founders did not predict this type of partisan map-drawing.


In Rucho v. Common Cause, in 2018, the Supreme Court deliberated on political redistricting, taking two cases: a challenge to Republican drawn Congressional maps in North Carolina, and Democratically drawn maps in Maryland. A Republican legislator stated that he thought “electing Republicans [was] better than electing Democrats,” and, for that reason, he drew the map to weaken the Democratic vote. In the North Carolina case, the mayor consulted a self-described “serial-gerrymanderer,” and has since testified that the commission drew the maps to flip a longtime Republican district.

However, the Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering was not justiciable —that such complaints were not within the purview of judicial remedy —and that this power had been reserved to Congress and the state legislatures. The court cited a debate at the Constitutional Convention, in which Madison argued for the control of Congress to “make or alter” these maps:

[T]he State Legislatures will sometimes fail… Whenever the State Legislatures have a favorite measure to carry, they would take care so to mould their regulations as to favor the candidates they wished to succeed.

The ruling also highlighted state-level solutions, such as legislatures establishing independent redistricting commissions. The passage of Proposition 50, which suspends California’s independent commission, indicates that these are some of the Democratic checks voters no longer trust.

In a poll by the PRRI, 48 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that “Because things have gotten so far off track in this country, we need a leader who is willing to break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right.” This is consistent with Governor Newsom’s messaging of “fighting fire with fire.”

In a PEW Research poll, 32 percent of Americans say “rule by a strong leader or the military, would be a good way of governing.” This belief is translating to Undemocratic policy. For one, Trump signed EO 14190 “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.” Under this executive order, The Handmaid’s Tale, books about Roe v. Wade and abortion, Brave New World, many books about mental health, including Thirteen Reasons Why and The Lovely Bones, Dunbar-Ortiz’s An Indigenous Peoples' History, the autobiography of Fredrick-Douglass, and What Were the Negro Leagues have been banned from school libraries and curricula. On the other side, leaders like Gavin Newsom have passed laws protecting books about LGBTQ+ and racial achievements, but have allowed districts to ban material with perceived, racially harmful language; the Burbank school district has banned Huckleberry Finn, Of Mice and Men, Roll of Thunder, and Hear My Cry because of “alleged potential harm” to black students.

Trump deploying the national guard, state legislatures passing laws that prohibit hate speech (i.e., Connecticut), and banning the burning of flags are additional examples of the increasing bipartisan support for leaders who exercise unjust and unconstitutional powers. In the same PRRI poll, mentioned above, 23 percent stated their belief that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save our country.”

This mind for political violence takes on a new light after the recent election of Jay Jones to AG of Virginia. In private texts with his colleague, Jones stated that he hoped the children of his political opponent would die in their mother’s arms. His political colleague confronted him on these remarks, and he justified, “Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy.” The election of Jones indicates that, if ~20 percent of Americans say they support political violence, a majority do not view these types of graphic comments as disqualifying for positions of Democratic leadership.

In a 2024 Gallup poll, nearly half of the respondents opposed government mandates to vaccinate children. The argument against public health mandates is that parents (not the government) should decide what is in the best interest of their children. However, when the President or a governor talks about restocking the school library shelves, they have been able to leverage our cultural anxiety and deliver the message that you are the one choosing what content to leave in or throw out. This goes beyond a paternalistic government, because it is about power, not trust. People see our politics as a “winner takes all,” and 40 percent of Americans saying that we need leaders “willing to break rules,” does not mean they trust those leaders to be schoolboys, but that—even if those leaders are apparently corrupt, self-interested, or dangerous—they need excessive power to overcome “the other side.” The solution is public dialogue: if people are exposed to their opponents, no matter how hostile the conversations begin, there is a higher likelihood that they will perceive their king-like politicians as the greater threat to liberty than whoever sits across the aisle.

The trend of relinquishing our First Amendment rights, compromising the integrity of our elections, and supporting political violence—or accepting candidates exposed to hold those beliefs—has destabilized our Democracy. This ballot-bullying and attempting to restrain the other party to protect your rights can only be resolved by starting a national dialogue and acknowledging that the “the stakes are too high” argument only elevates politicians who have contempt for Democracy and ambitions to strip out the checks and balances on their power.

Luke Harris is a Fall Intern with the Fulcrum.

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.


Read More

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less