The powerful firm syndrome

Casinos are in the news today; see “The Man Behind Gingrich’s Money” in the New York Times.  That man is casino magnate Sheldon Adelson—a fascinating example of  how private interests influence our public and political life and even foreign policy today.

Deploring such influences is one of the rare things that the TEA Party and the Occupy Movement may agree on.

Examples: Did presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his associates at Bain Capital profit excessively from shutting down American companies and is he too beholden to Wall Street?  Did the U.S. State Department give special treatment to the controversial pipeline proposal by TransCanada, where a 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign aide is now a company executive?  Do media run by a small in-group aim to foist off their own ideological viewpoints on the public?

Good questions.

I want to stress that in what I am going to write I have no knowledge of any improprieties or illegalities; my theme is to ask: does the involvement of powerful firms in matters of justice and politics, in Chester County, threaten the public interest or public confidence in our institutions?

According to “Supporters of former prosecutor cry foul over termination” by Michael P. Rellahan, Daily Local News, 1/19/12:

“…In a statement this week, Miller suggested the reason he was fired from the job he held since January 1988 was clear to him: He had run afoul of members of Hogan’s former law firm, Lamb McErlane of West Chester, for his prosecution of the son of a member of that firm on homicide by vehicle charges.

“The firm is headed by former county DA, GOP chairman, and state Supreme Court Justice William Lamb….

“Miller said that to his knowledge, no county prosecutor had ever been fired by an incoming district attorney in five such staff reorganizations in the years since Lamb ran the office in the 1970s….”

Some readers’ comments on that article offer choice invective linking this firing to criteria unrelated to job performance, including this concise zinger:

DtownTaxpayer wrote on Jan 19, 2012 7:41 PM:
” Chesco politics are a disgusting cesspool. “

Similarly see “Controversy over shake-up of Chesco D.A.’s office” by Kathleen Brady Shea, Philadelphia Inquirer, January 18, 2012:

“An overhaul of the Chester County District Attorney’s Office, believed to be unprecedented in its scope, has resulted in six departures, four additions, a promotion, mass reassignments - and controversy….

“One of the terminated prosecutors, former Deputy District Attorney Robert L. Miller, suggested he was fired for refusing to ‘soft-pedal’ a case involving the son of a partner in Hogan’s former law office. Brian O’Neill, 22, son of Thomas O’Neill, a partner in the Lamb McErlane firm, was convicted of homicide by vehicle in August 2010 in connection with a double-fatal car crash….

“Hogan’s Democratic rival in the district attorney’s race, lawyer Sam Stretton, suggested months ago that if Hogan were elected, Miller’s job would likely be in jeopardy….”

So our theme surfaces again: could membership in a powerful law firm conceivably influence the political or professional performance of public officials?  Let’s try to learn more.

Hogan and Miller were colleagues in the DA’s office at one time.  Hogan joined Lamb McErlane in 2006 and became a partner in June 2010.  He won the Republican endorsement on February 15, 2011, over Patrick Carmody, a First Assistant DA (see Carmody’s article “Fighting for Freedom” at PA Conservative Council, 2/8/11) and Steve Kelly.  See Pattye Benson’s blog, 2/16/11, for more details.

Michael P. Rellahan, “Sentencing hearing for fatal crash opens today,” Daily Local News, 10/30/10, describes what no doubt was a highly conflictive case, since “The defense attorney … works with O’Neill’s father Thomas O’Neill at the West Chester law firm of Lamb McErlane.”  For more, see Michael P. Rellahan, “Split verdict in DUI homicide case,” Daily Local News, 8/24/10.

O’Neill’s defense attorney was Daniel Bush, who, until he moved to Lamb McErlane in 2000, like Hogan and Miller worked in the Chester County DA’s Office.

It would be interesting if the O’Neill case comes back to court, for any reason, wouldn’t it?

The firm produced two judges: Rogers (Commonwealth Court) and Lamb, both of whom rejoined the firm after their judicial service.  DA Hogan is no longer listed as belonging to the firm, but it wouldn’t be surprising if he some day follows the Rogers and Lamb pattern.

Speaking of Judge Lamb, did you know that he has an interest (financial, that is) in the gambling industry?

See “Sprague quizzed… & ChesCo“  (Feb. 5, 2010), referencing an Inquirer story subtitled “Is the Pennsylvania Casino Assn. trying to influence legislators or educate the public? Opinions differ.” 

Besides being prominent lawyers and former Supreme Court justices, Lamb and Sprague are major investors in the SugarHouse Casino.  Lamb, in earlier days, was also Chairman of the Chester County Republican Committee and Vice Chairman of the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania.  Rep. Curt Schroder (R-155), who recently announced that he will not run for reelection, tangled with Sprague at the hearing where Sprague was “quizzed.” 

Sprague is a former associate and lead defense lawyer of the now jailed former state senator Vincent Fumo, formerly of counsel at the influential Philadelphia law firm Dilworth Paxson, and the chief architect of the July 2004 passage of a bill legalizing slots gambling in PA.

The six Lamb-Sprague associates, who jointly own about a third of SugarHouse under the group name of RPRS Gaming, filed a lawsuit last spring against the casino’s Chicago investors (see the Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/13/11).

Law firms, courts, state legislature, gaming… what’s going on here?  If you suspect that gaming money corrupts public institutions, you can support your suspicions by reading  “Payout: A Common Cause Education Fund Study Of Campaign Contributions By the Gaming Industry in Pennsylvania from 2001-08.”

Gambling is a growing issue in our public life. The Daily Local’s 1/21/12 editorial (3rd paragraph) says:

“Thorns for the growth of gambling in Pennsylvania, as the Commonwealth creeps closer to becoming the nation’s second-largest gambling market. Gross revenue at the state’s 10 casinos topped $3 billion in 2011 thanks to steady growth in slot machine play and a full year of gambling at table games. The results represent a nearly 22 percent increase from 2010, according to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, as reported by the Associated Press. Pennsylvania’s first casinos opened in 2006, and are already threatening to surpass Atlantic City as the nation’s second-largest gambling market. Although the state taxes casino revenues, the proceeds have yet to provide meaningful property tax relief or close state budget gaps. Pennsylvania is creating a temptation for losing gamblers instead of building prosperity.”

Could corporations—say, casino operators or the natural gas extraction industry—possibly influence legislation and even the courts?  If you’re a John Grisham fan, you might well answer Yes to both.  My 2/6/10 blog “’The Appeal’: Fiction or Prediction?” analyzes his novel in which a corporation buys its own jurist.  (Sorry, I guessed wrong in that blog: the corrupt jurist in fact does not repent of his ways.)  Grisham knows something about state politics: he “served in the House of Representatives in Mississippi from January 1984 to September 1990” (Wikipedia).

While we are on socially damaging issues, there’s alcohol.  Atty. Joseph E. Brion, whose firm has contributed one sitting Chesco judge, organized campaign mailings for another, and could well be in line to contribute another judge soon, was also, like Judge Lamb, Chairman of the Chester County Republican Committee and now has been appointed by Gov. Corbett as Chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board.

I learned on their site that “The PLCB is the largest purchaser of wine and spirits in the United States” and that “The Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement is responsible for the enforcement of all liquor laws. The PLCB fully funds this function out of operational revenues.” 

It will be interesting to see whether the new PLCB Chairman has any influence, positive or negative, on alcohol consumption in the Borough of West Chester, given that alcohol consumption entails a large expense to the Borough’s police force and taxpayers and much disruption to Borough residents. 

Residents have often called for the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to step up enforcement in vulnerable communities like West Chester (which now hosts  something like 35 liquor licenses), but for some reason it never seems to happen.

For one resident’s update on alcohol-fueled conditions in the Borough, see Joe Norley’s blog today, “West Chester Police Can Not Control West Chester University Students Drunken Behavior,” No JOE?, 1/29/12.  Has anyone yet proposed a casino on the Wyeth-Pfizer property in the eastern side of the Borough?

In case you were wondering: the most influential West Chester firms each has one or two “graduates” on the Chester County Court of Common Pleas.  Isn’t that part of being influential?

Sorry, I’m going to leave out the rest of the firms.  This is long enough!

Let me repeat that I have no knowledge of any improprieties or illegalities, and my theme is to ask: does the involvement of powerful firms in matters of justice and politics, in Chester County, threaten the public interest or public confidence in our institutions?

I don’t know the answer.  Maybe others do.  If they find the answer, on their own terms, it will likely be by following the money, as the old adage runs, and also the personal and political relations.

As a final thought: institutions, whether private or public, profit-making or non-profit, are complex assemblages of varied individuals and ways of doing things.  As in government or education, the institution can take on a sort of life of its own… like corporations, come to think of it, into which almost exactly two years ago the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision instilled the very breath of life.

John Tyler’s grandchildren and the sense of history

I just couldn’t resist sharing this historical tidbit from OurCampaigns.com, 1/25/12:

Former President John Tyler’s (1790-1862) grandchildren still alive

Former President John Tyler, born 221 years ago, still has two living grandchildren. The one-term president isn’t a well-known historical figure; he’s probably best remembered for helping to push through the annexation of Texas in 1845, shortly before leaving office.

So, how is it possible that a former president who died 150 years ago would still have direct descendants alive today? As it turns out, the Tyler men were known for fathering children late in life. And that math is pretty outstanding when added up:

John Tyler was born in 1790. He became the 10th president of the United States in 1841 after William Henry Harrison died in office. Tyler fathered Lyon Gardiner Tyler in 1853, at age 63. Then, at the age of 71, Lyon Gardiner Tyler fathered Lyon Gardiner Tyler Jr. in 1924 and four years later at age 75, Harrison Ruffin Tyler. Both men are still alive today.

I remember reading about the grandsons when visiting (or trying too: there was a big snowfall) some plantations in Virginia.

One of the grandsons, as I recall, still lives on the top floor of the family plantation, Sherwood Forest.  From their site (source of the house photo above), this is just too interesting not to pass along:

“Sherwood Forest Plantation remains the longest frame house in America — expanded to its present length of over 300 feet in 1845 when Tyler added a 68-foot ballroom catering to the popular dance of his time, the Virginia Reel.”

When Tyler was born, George Washington was president.

This country isn’t really that old.  When I was a child, my Aunt Sadie telling me that when she was a child, an old woman who was her family’s neighbor told her about the Indians who, when she was a child, came down out of the hills to ask for food in a harsh winter.  So that would have been happening when president Tyler was about 30 years old. 

There you have it: oral history taking us back almost to the beginnings of the United States as a country.

The Tyler grandsons must be on people’s minds today.  Really, I wasn’t going to say anything about contemporary politics at all, but I surfed across this article by Mackenzie Weinger, Politico.com, 1/27/12:

President John Tyler’s grandson says Newt Gingrich is a ‘jerk’

President John Tyler’s grandson Harrison Tyler, 84, says he’s not impressed with the state of politics today and particularly thinks Newt Gingrich is a “big jerk” for his three marriages.

Incredibly, President Tyler, who was born in 1790 and became the 10th president in 1841, has two grandchildren still alive today. His grandson, Harrison Ruffin Tyler, currently maintains the Tyler presidential home, Sherwood Forest Plantation Foundation in Charles City, Va.

Harrison said he doesn’t spend much time focusing on the 2012 presidential race — “I can’t stand watching television” — but considers himself a conservative. His big problem this election, he said, is with the candidates.

“I don’t really like any of them,” he said in an interview.

But Tyler’s especially not a fan of Gingrich, who he dubbed a “big jerk.”

“He needs to stick with the same wife, that’s what my mother taught me,” Tyler said….”

Amazingly, Tyler is “also descended from Pocahontas.”  He had two wives, but the old-fashioned way: after his first wife died, he married a much younger second wife; he had fifteen children in all, one of whom lived until 1947.

Just think, grandfather Tyler took office almost 20 years before there was a Republican party for Newt to join. He didn’t quite live to see the freeing of his slaves, and all slaves in the US, by the 13th Amendment in 1865.

What are the chances of president Obama’s grandchildren being alive 171 years after he assumed the presidency, thus in the year 2179 (unless medicine makes some major breakthroughs)? 

As a history professor, Newt should also appreciate all this (maybe with one exception).

Vouchers are already here, under another name

I’ve been thinking about charter schools and school vouchers for a long time.
 
Many have said that vouchers are the slippery slope to privatization of the public schools, from which charter schools are already draining funds.  I share the same fear.  But the more I learn, the less simple it seems.

Let’s remember that charters are public schools too, in the sense that they are paid for by the taxpayer, are accountable for student performance through the statewide PSSA tests, and are subject to public and media scrutiny through PA Right To Know laws.

Nevertheless, many charters are profit-making enterprises, and, as seen in recent headline-making scandals, can contract with providers who have a suspect relation to the charter operators; and owners and principals can, sometimes unconscionably, earn money from more than one charter school at the same time.

As publicly-funded schools, charters are, in fact, in competition with any private and religious schools that might receive voucher money.

See Philadelphia’s Archbishop Chaput’s remark quoted in the 1/22/12 Daily Local editorial “Philly archdiocese has little faith in Roman Catholics”:

“It’s useful to wonder how many of our schools might have been saved if, over the last decade, Catholics had fought for vouchers as loudly and vigorously as they now grieve about school closings.”

That is probably true.  And some of those voucher-supported students would doubtless have transferred from, or never have gone to, charter schools, which get a lot more tax money per student than even the most generous voucher proposals.

My view, which many may not like, is that there will be vouchers and there will be charters; the issue is to hold both to an educationally justifiable role that does not diminish traditional public education.

There already are charters.  And actually, there already are vouchers, in the sense of a procedure to turn over what would otherwise be tax revenue to private and religious schools.

This is public money, because if a corporation didn’t use the voucher-like option known as EITC, its tax money would go to the state. 

Let’s be clear about this: if your marginal tax bracket is 25%, and you donate $100 to a qualified school, church, or other non-profit, you are really donating $75 of your own money and the US government—meaning other taxpayers—is donating the other $25, since you don’t have to pay that in your tax bill. If a corporation donates $100,000 for scholarships, and thus reduces its taxes by $90,000, the rest of us are making up for the loss of that tax revenue.

So, if you believe it’s a slippery slope, we’re already on it.

See “Educational Improvement Tax Credit Program (EITC),” downloadable as EITC_Business_2011_F.pdf at the site of the state’s Department of Community and Economic Development. 

The overall EITC download explains it all.  Instead of paying its taxes due to the state, your company can contribute through a non-profit intermediary.  Download the full list of those as Scholarship Organizations, Pre-Kindergarten Scholarship Organizations, and Educational Improvement Organizations (dedicated more to supporting innovation in public education) farther down that page).

The Scholarship Organization in turn can award scholarships for students to attend any school in the Commonwealth.  That school can be public or private, profit or non-profit, religious or not.  The student needs to be in a household that (currently) has an annual income of $60,000 or less (plus more for each other dependent, plus a lot more if the student is considered to have a disability.

The company can also count a donation of personal property or services, including hourly wages.  So your company organizes volunteers to assist a qualifying organization, or donates old computers, and gets a tax credit.

Well, you may say, isn’t this the same as making a donation to a non-profit organization, just like the rest of us?  Not at all, because on the whole corporations can’t deduct charitable contributions from their income for PA tax purposes.  (Download the instructions here after searching for 2011_rev-1200.pdf.)

The EITC is a tax credit, of which PA businesses can claim a wide array (see 2011 Restricted Tax Credits).

You take a credit not off your income but off the tax you owe.  Suppose your corporation’s income in 2011 was $1,000,000.  “Pennsylvania’s corporate tax structure consists of a flat rate of 9.99% on all corporate income” (Tax Foundation).  So, your corporate tax will be $99,900.  But if you donate $99,000 to a qualifying Scholarship Organization, you deduct a credit of 75% of that from what you owe the state.  Or, if you agree to donate to that organization two years in a row, you get a tax credit for 90% of the donation. 

Voila!  Your tax is now (rounding off) $10,000, and the other $90,000 went to an organization that channels it in scholarships to a public, charter, religious, or other private school.

Just like vouchers!  Except, the most viable variants of this year’s stalled voucher bill are much more restrictive than the current EITC regarding the school students attend before getting the scholarship and the student’s household income.

See more background in Eric Boehm, “Educational choice in PA has expanded in past 20 years,” Daily Local News, 1/23/12):

In 2002, Pennsylvania created the EITC program, which is funded through corporate tax contributions.

The tax credit program is widely considered a success — the PSEA’s official position is it neither supports nor opposes it. Last year, in a vote of 190-7, the state House approved a bill to increase the cap on the EITC program to $200 million annually.

“I think EITC is the signature program in Pennsylvania when it comes to school choice,”said state Rep. Tom Quigley, R-Montgomery, who sponsored the bill expanding the program last year. “It seems like all parties have been satisfied with it.”

The state Senate has yet to take it up the EITC expansion, and Corbett wants to see it rolled together with vouchers and a series of academic and financial reforms to the state’s charter school system….

This year, more than 90,000 students are enrolled in charter or cyber charter schools, and an additional 38,000 students take advantage of the EITC to defray the cost of a private education. Another 20,000 students are being home schooled this year.

So it’s happening, and it has been happening for ten years.  People who say we have to stop vouchers have already lost.

Please take away this lesson: vouchers already exist under another name.  The real question is: how much public money will the state take out of other budgets and put into EITC and/or vouchers?

Maybe all the talk abut vouchers is just a diversion, and the real action is taking place around the EITC budget.

I’ll stop here and write more on vouchers soon.

Redistricting: If the Missouri Supreme Court can detect abuse…

…perhaps the PA Supreme Court can too!

We’ll find out when eleven petitions from Chesco and other locations are argued tomorrow in Harrisburg.

This article shows that the Missouri impasse revolves around the same point as the PA petition: how to attain compactness of districts without splitting other political units except when absolutely necessary:

“Missouri: Court Rejects State Redistricting Map,” by the AP, New York Times, 1/18/12:

“The State Supreme Court struck down new State Senate districts on Tuesday and ordered more review of new Congressional boundaries, throwing uncertainty into Missouri’s election season just weeks before candidates are to begin filing for office. The court ordered the trial judge to rule by Feb. 3 on claims that the Congressional districts violated the State Constitution because they were not drawn compactly. The ruling invalidating the State Senate districts said a plan submitted by a special panel of judges violated the State Constitution by dividing Jackson and Greene Counties into too many districts. That redistricting process must over again, with Gov. Jay Nixon appointing a new bipartisan citizens’ commission to draw the boundaries. Missouri is dropping from nine House seats to eight this year, and the Republican-controlled Legislature enacted its Congressional redistricting map last year after overriding
a veto by Mr. Nixon, a Democrat.”

For more Chesco background, see my blog “West Chester appeals split between 156th and 160th” (Jan. 10) and Eric Boehm, “District maps under attack before state Supreme Court,” Daily Local News, 1/12/12.

For more on the Missouri case, see “Missouri court throws out redistricting plans ” in the Kansas City Star, 1/18/12. 

For related news from other states, see “Redistricting Roundup” at ballotpedia.org.

Let me end with a remark about constitutions: if we don’t like them, we should change them.  That happens with changing times; for example, amendments to the US constitution abolished slavery and granted citizenship to former slaves after the Civil War and gave the vote to women in 1920.

It often seems to me that precisely those people who should the most respect the constitution do so the least.  Cases in point:

PA constitution, II.16:

“The Commonwealth shall be divided into fifty senatorial and two hundred three representative districts, which shall be composed of compact and contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable. Each senatorial district shall elect one Senator, and each representative district one Representative. Unless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or representative district. “

At least until next week, the PA Supreme Court has ruled that the last sentence is basically irrelevant.

US Constitution, Bill of Rights, 2nd amendment:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The US Supreme Court in 2008 ruled that the reference to militia is basically irrelevant (Wikipedia).  If so, why did the Founders put it in?

More on the PA constitution, about education, soon.

PS 1/23/12: See also “Amend the Constitution?” by Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune, at Reader Supported News, 22 January 12, showing that any current talk of amending the US constitution is just playing to the political base.

When the current round of gerrymandering could have been avoided

I thought you’d be interested in the announcement of a forum I found in my files, below. 

Two years ago, people could predict the partisan redistricting that we have just been subjected to, unless redistricting were turned over to someone other than the majority party in Harrisburg.  Reform didn’t prevail. 

The next reform opportunity will be for the 2021 redistricting… unless the appeals to be argued Monday January 23 prevail, which will depend on the PA Supreme Court taking the courageous step of deciding that the state constitution actually means something.

For more background, see “West Chester appeals split between 156th and 160th” (Jan. 10).

Here’s the 2010 handout:

Bayard Rustin, PBS, and CCHS

In case you missed hearing the PBS radio special today (Mon. Jan. 16) on West Chester’s greatest contribution to civil rights, Bayard Rustin, you can still hear it at State of the Reunion.  Here is the introductory online text:

Bayard Rustin – Who Is This Man?

A New Black History Month Special from State of the Re:Union

August 28^th, 1963 will forever be tied to Martin Luther King Jr.’s hallowed “I Have a Dream Speech.” This historic moment would probably have never come to fruition if it weren’t for a man standing in King’s shadow, Mr. Bayard Rustin.   Bayard Rustin was a man with a number of seemingly incompatible labels: black, gay, Quaker . . . identifications that served to earn him as many detractors as admirers. Although he had numerous passions and pursuits, his most transformative act, one that certainly changed the course of American history, was to counsel MLK on the use of non-violent resistance.

Rustin also helped to engineer the March on Washington and frame the Montgomery bus boycott.  With such lofty achievements, why isn’t Rustin considered an icon of both Civil Rights and humanity?   Why is Rustin not synonymous with Civil Rights? How could a person who changed the course of American history not be a household name? Was he purposely kept out of the history books? On State of the Re:Union, host Al Letson normally sets out to take listeners to a specific place, but for this special, the program takes the audience to a specific time in history that shapes the way we live now. More than just a Black History Month special, we found his complex story one for all seasons.

You can stream or download the entire Bayard Rustin radio episode, or listen to it broken up by segment.

At the same site you can also see pictures of Rustin and hear samples of his acclaimed singing (including commentary: “the voice that was first heard in his grandmother’s house in West Chester PA was now being heard around the world…”).

This is actually the same program I blogged about a year ago today in “Bayard Rustin: listen Monday noon / basic information” (1/16/11), but this year PBS has put a lot of valuable stuff on its web site.  Please explore it!

In recognition of Rustin’s 100th birthday, which would have been Mach 17, 2012, the Chester County Historical Society is organizing an exhibit:

Bayard Rustin’s Local Roots

Opens February 2, 2012

Bayard Rustin (March 17, 1912 – August 24, 1987), whose 100^th birthday would have been March 2012, was an American leader in social movements for civil rights, socialism, pacifism and non-violence, and gay rights.  He was also a West Chester native who was active here and across the nation in the struggle for human rights and economic justice for over 50 years.  Rustin’s extensive background in the theory, strategies, and tactics of nonviolent action proved invaluable his close association with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  This exhibit will explore how Rustin became who he was because of his experiences and environment here in Chester County.  

Our deepest gratitude to The Pew Center for Arts & Heritage through the Heritage Philadelphia Program, The Philadelphia Foundation, and PGN for their support of our exhibit.

As part of this program, CCCS aims to chronicle the various places Rustin and his family members lived in West Chester over the years, and also to display memorabilia and preserve reminiscences involving Rustin.  If you can help, please contact Chester County Historical Society.

I’ll end with two Rustin quotes (from the end of PBS’s episode 3) that we can all mull over beneficially:

“We all are one, and if we don’t know it, we will learn it the hard way.”

“The problem can never be stated in terms of black and white.”

What “hard way”?  What “problem”?

My view: those quotes and everything Bayard Rustin ever stood for, are about social justice, the exact opposite of the cynical old slogan “Divide and conquer.” 

In short, Rustin had the vision of an American people, even a world people, with common interests and goals, not fragmented by the color lines, class lines, and religion lines that are, surprisingly and most unfortunately, gaining in divisiveness as we start to move through the 21st century.

“I have come here to proclaim humanity,” he said (quoted on the podcast of his singing, above).

PS Jan. 18: I just discovered a  brief video dramatizing Rustin’s arrest and chain gang experience on YouTube.  For his influential narrative “Twenty-two days on a chain gang” see my earlier post.

Which is better: the Mafia or Bain Capital?

Today I heard two interesting business facts, and it’s hard not to connect them.

On NPR’s Marketplace program, I noted this mention and found it online:

West Chester appeals split between 156th and 160th

As explained in “The latest on redistricting” (Nov. 29), the Harrisburg plan to redistrict PA House districts splits East Bradford, Westtown, West Chester in Chesco and Upper Chichester in Delco.  Just in the 156th and 160th districts, that’s four municipalities split for manifest political purposes in violation of the state constitution.

Residents of the Borough of West Chester, drawn from both proposed districts and from the two main political parties plus Independents, today filed a petition for redress of a state administrative action (that, it seems, is the proper term, not “suit” and not “appeal”). 

The petition—along with others from a similarly divided Phoenixville and from Amanda Holt (see my Nov. 29 post)—goes straight to the PA Supreme Court for rapid action, as the primary election season is upon us.

Many of us suspect that higher-level courts are becoming appendages of political parties.  For those who believe in the primacy of constitutions and the separation of powers, this is a tragedy.  Still, one can always hope that a majority of the 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats on the PA Supreme Court will see this issue the way the petitioners do.

The legal arguments in the petition set forth by attorney Sam Stretton are so interesting and weighty that I wanted to give somewhat lengthy excerpts. 

It also serves as a historical reminder of why West Chester was divided into voting wards over 20 years ago, and why any change to the wards (which is imminent, as required by the census results) requires court approval.

After the initial legal information, we get to…

Relevant Procedural Background

17. Pursuant to Section 17(a) of Article 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, in 2011, the year following the Federal decennial census, the 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission was constituted tor the purpose of reapportioning the Commonwealth.

18. Pursuant to Article 17(c) of Article 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Commission approved a preliminary reapportionment plan on October 31, 2011, by a 3 to 2 vote, with Commission members Costa and Dermody dissenting (“Preliminary Plan”).

19. The Preliminary Plan was not revealed to the Senate and House minority leader members of the Commission until one half-hour in advance of the time scheduled for voting on the Preliminary Plan and no meaningful opportunity for review of the Preliminary Plan was provided.

20. The Commission conducted public hearings on the Preliminary Plan on November 18 and November 23, 2011, and allowed for the submission of written comments and concerns.

21. During the course of the hearings, witnesses from across the Commonwealth testified as to the importance of not dividing political subdivisions unnecessarily….

General Statement of Objections to the Final Reapportionment PIan Splitting The Borough of West Chester in the 1561th Legislative District into the New 156th and new 160th Legislative Districts

24. The Petitioners object to the determination that divides the Borough of West Chester, the County seat of Chester County, in half placing three Wards into the new 160th Legislative District and four Wards into the new 156th Legislative District….

27. The said division violates the Pennsylvania Constitution under Article 2, Section 16.

28. This Constitutional section prohibits the division of townships and boroughs in forming a Representative District.

“The Commonwealth shall be divided into fifty senatorial and two hundred three representative districts, which shall be comprised of compact and contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable. Each senatorial district shall elect one Senator, and each representative district one Representative. Unless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or representative district.” Article 2, Section 16 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (emphasis supplied)….

30. The Petitioners have prepared an alternative plan, which maintains the Borough of West Chester in one Legislative District….

31. There is no absolute necessity for dividing the Borough of West Chester.

32. Further, the Borough of West Chester, in 1987, was the subject of Court decisions and Findings that there had been 100 years of voting discrimination against the minority population. See In the Matter of Petition to Establish Wards in the Borough of West Chester, 36 Chester County Reporter 12 (1988)….

33, That decision found there had been intentional discrimination and disenfranchisement of the minority population.

34. The current division in West Chester will divide the minority voting block and minority voters.

35. This objection being made now is that, because there has been a finding in the past of racial discrimination, the Borough of West Chester should not be divided.

36. Further, this would violate Section 5 of the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. For a district with a history of racial discrimination, there has to be a preclearance.

37. There is such a finding of past voting discrimination based on race in the Borough of West Chester, as referenced in the aforementioned In the Matter of Petition to Establish Wards In the Borough of West Chester Opinion.

38. The Petitioners object based on case law in Pennsylvania, which precludes gerrymandering based on racial or ethnic bases.

39. Because of the past history of discrimination and because the minority population is split with the current gerrymandering in the Borough of West Chester, the Petitioners contend that this will dilute the voting strength of minorities in the new Legislative Districts. See In Re Reapportionment Plan for the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, 442 A.2d 661, 668 (Pa., 1981).

40. The Petitioners contend that the aforementioned new reapportionment fences out racial and/or ethnic groups with a purpose to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or political elements of the voting population in the new Legislative Districts….

42. The Petitioners object in that the division of the Borough of West Chester, which is primarily a Democratic borough where all elected officials are from the Democratic party, was an attempt by the Republican party to dilute the Democratic strength in the 156th Legislative District and was done solely for the purpose of ensuring that a Republican will win the two new divided Districts, the 156th and 160th.

43. The Petitioners contend that there was no good faith effort by the Respondent, 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, in establishing equal districts when they divided the Borough of West Chester in half.

44. The Petitioners object in that the redistricting and cutting in half the Borough of West Chester fails to note that the County seat and Borough is a community that needs to be within one Legislative District to protect its shared interests.

45. Splitting the district into a lower halt, the 160th, which goes into Delaware County and which has no connection with Chester County, ignores the community interest and Borough interest.

At the end comes the section “Relief Requested by the Petitioners,” which naturally requests that the Borough be put back entirely into the 156th legislative district.

If the petition is granted, it will mark an important moment in state history: a strong against gerrymandering.  All citizens would benefit.  We all should have the right to live in legislative districts that, as required by the state constitution, are compact and contiguous and do not split up our municipalities.

Why Voting Rights Matter

To show why so many of us react with such outrage to current proposals in Harrisburg to require government-issued photo ID for all voters at all elections—which is widely regarded as a nationally-planned political ploy to make it harder for Democratic-leaning constituencies to vote in November, 2012—I wanted to share this excerpt from “Our Favorite Books of 2011,” in the section by Joe Nichols, in The Progressive magazine, 12/11-1/12, p. 79:

…The best book of contemporary investigative journalism and analysis in recent years, Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (The New Press), just came out in a mass paperback edition that will make this groundbreaking exposé of the racism of America’s burgeoning prison-industrial complex more broadly available.

Alexander’s book stands in the tradition of the great muckraking journalists and thinkers of a century ago. Her perspective is chilling and profoundly important, as evidenced by the opening lines of this book: “Jarvious Cotton cannot vote. Like his father, grandfather, great grandfather, and great-great-grandfather, he has been denied the right to participate in our electoral democracy.

Cotton’s family tree tells the story of several generations of black men who were born in the United States but who were denied the most basic freedom that democracy promises—the freedom to vote for those who will make the rules and laws that govern one’s life. Cotton’s great-great-grandfather could not vote as a slave. His great-grandfather was beaten to death by the Ku Klux Klan for attempting to vote. His grandfather was prevented from voting by Klan intimidation. His father was barred from voting by poll taxes and literacy tests. Today, Jarvious Cotton cannot vote because he, like many black men in the United States, has been labeled a felon and is currently on parole.”

From Iowamania to Chescomania?

We’ve been hearing for months about the Iowa Republican caucus.  I’m so glad it’s over.  I just don’t get the big deal.  It’s a good state marketing ploy—but what else?  The candidates don’t even get any convention votes out of it, just some bragging rights.

Rick Santorum, who five years ago gave up his seat (unwillingly, that is) to Bob Casey by the largest losing margin ever for an incumbent US senator from Pennsylvania, almost tied for first place with 30,007 Iowa caucus votes (“Romney gets narrow victory over Santorum in Iowa,” Daily Local News, 1/4/12 online). 

Wow, what a great showing!  Or is was it?  Is 30,007 a lot of votes?  In 2006, Santorum lost Pennsylvania by 2,392,984 -1,684,778 = 708,206 votes.  Now, there you can say the voters spoke!

To put 30,007 Iowa caucus votes in perspective, in November 2006 Santorum received more than 2.5 times that many (77,948) votes just in Chester County, but still lost here by 17,345 votes.  So in Iowa, Santorum’s near victory garnered only 38.5% of the votes he got in losing Chester County in 2006.

In the 2010 census, the population of Chester County was 498,886 and the population of Iowa was 3,046,355.  With 6 times Chesco’s population, Iowa caucus-goers could only manage to cast 122,255 total votes (only about 75% of those were Republicans; the others were Dems and Independents who went to a caucus and sign up temporarily as Republicans). 

That’s only 4% of the Iowa population, hardly a mandate even if someone got 100% of the vote.  By contrast, in Santorum’s losing 2006 race, 173,241—35% of Chester County’s population—voted for senator.  (Of course, the percentages of registered voters is larger, but that figure is harder to dig out; and there is something to be said for looking at the population as a whole, since senators and presidents theoretically serve everyone.)

According to entrance polling, Iowa caucus-goers were 57% men, 47% very conservative, 57% Evangelical or born-again Christian, and 50% rural.  Iowa is also 91.5% white (Chester County: 85.5%).

In short,  Chester County is much more representative of the country as a whole than Iowa is.

So I suggest that Chester County should organize its own presidential caucus, on the same day as Iowa, in 2016.  Whatever the electoral value, it would interest more people here in politics and be great for local business and media.