• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Democracy Chronicles

Towards better democracy everywhere.

  • AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
  • WORLD DEMOCRACY
  • POLITICAL ART
  • more
    • election technology
    • money politics
    • political dissidents
    • THIRD PARTY
      • third party central
      • green party
      • justice party
      • libertarian party
    • voting methods
  • DC INFO
    • author central
    • about
    • advertise with DC
    • contact
    • privacy policy
You are here: Home / DC Authors / On Gerrymandering And Judicial Democracy

On Gerrymandering And Judicial Democracy

October 12, 2022 by Andrew Straw 1 Comment

FacebookLinkedInPinTweet

Because I am a write-in candidate for Indiana Secretary of State, Common Cause asked me to complete its questionnaire. Common Cause pushes for many different types of reforms to increase democratic strength and reduce the influence of special interest money and bribes in politics.

One area of reform Common Cause supports is reducing or ending gerrymandering. States have historically used the size, shape, and location of political districts to ensure political success by the party in power. Gerrymanders have the purpose of making some voters more powerful than others.

I am against gerrymandering and want to see every instance of it abolished so Americans have more equality and power when they vote.

If a state has 100 house members, for instance, the districts can be created based not on the location of precincts, but a statewide voter roll division. At each Census, the entire voter roll should be divided into 100 “districts” by assigning voters a district alphabetically rather than with reference to any physical location. Until the next Census, that voter has that district. If new voters are added, they should be assigned the next available district in order of voter registration by time and date.

Such statewide districts will even out the influence of urban and rural voters and make everyone equal with regard to this aspect of elections and power over government. Since state legislators have power over the whole state in making laws, the entire state should have a say in their election. This also holds for federal offices with districts. U.S. representatives have the right to run in any district in the state where they live, so why not allow voters to elect them statewide with statewide districts assigned in order of the voter rolls?

Democracy in the Court

I also believe appellate judges in Indiana should be elected in contested elections every 5 years. All of the most important positions in the judicial branch should have greater democratic input. Thus, those in control of attorney discipline or judge discipline should be elected and have statewide districts like legislators.

My woes and pain from being subjected to court discrimination in Indiana are largely the result of partisan governors choosing judges and justices with no input from the public at all. The more the clean waters of the voter roll can influence judges, the better. It is for this reason that juries are so important in the constitutional framework. Guess where juries come from: the voter rolls. We must make more use of the voter rolls and allow the good faith and good will of the public to control government and limit it.

I would advance these principles to the federal level as well, with less insulated appointment powers and more influence of the voters. I would have a national election for U.S. Supreme Court with short term limits, for instance, instead of political appointments. Each circuit should also be electing circuit judges. No judge should be able to say no to an appeal without actually deciding that appeal on the merits. If judges are going to have power over our rights, we the People must have power over them. Elections are the way. Clean elections require killing the Gerrymander.

FacebookLinkedInPinTweet

Filed Under: DC Authors Tagged With: Direct Democracy and Referendums, Judicial Elections, Redistricting, Supreme Court

Some highlighted Democracy Chronicles topics

Africa American Corruption American Local Elections American State Elections Asia Capitalism and Big Business Celebrity Politics China Democracy Charity Democracy Protests Democrats Dictatorships Education Election History Election Methods Election Security Election Transparency Europe Internet and Democracy Journalism and Free Speech Middle East Minority Voting Rights Money Politics New York City and State Elections Political Artwork Political Dissidents Political Lobbying Redistricting Republicans Russia Socialism and Labor Social Media and Democracy South America Spying and Privacy Supreme Court Third Party Voter Access Voter ID Voter Registration Voter Suppression Voter Turnout Voting Technology Women Voting Rights Worldwide Worldwide Corruption

About Andrew Straw

Andrew Straw, a Democracy Chronicles columnist since 2018, is a person with disabilities who practiced disability law and engages in disability law reform advocacy. Straw was a Virginia lawyer and has served as corporate counsel for billionaire Alan M. Voorhees, who designed the Interstate Highway System and the Metro in Washington DC. Straw then worked for the Chief Justice of Indiana and was the assistant dean in charge of the International Programs at Indiana University-Maurer School of Law. Straw remains a member of the bar in good standing since 1999 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

He grew up in Indiana, where his brother, a retired USAF captain and twice a critical care trauma nurse veteran of Afghanistan, ran as a Democratic candidate for sheriff of Hamilton County in 2018. Jason Straw was head of Indiana NORML and still seeks reforms of the state’s marijuana laws like most other states have. Jason is known as “Captain Cannabis.”

Andrew Straw was born at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, where his father was training as a U.S. Marine for his Vietnam War duty. Straw was thus poisoned on the first days of his life but was denied compensation and health care. MDL-2218; Straw v. Wilkie, 843 F. App’x 263 (Fed. Cir. 1/15/2021); Straw v. United States, 4 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Straw started a group for people born or poisoned there called Children of Camp LeJeune in 2015. Congress voted to compensate people like Straw and his dead mother from the poisoning (S. 3373, Title VIII, Sec. 804). This new law passed the U.S. House by 342-88 and the U.S. Senate by 86-11. "Camp LeJeune Justice Act of 2022" was signed by President Biden on August 10, 2022.

Straw is a 9/11 victim, having been exposed to the toxic dust South of Canal Street in New York City in October 2001, with respiratory and throat illness.

Straw has visited 16 countries and has lived in the United States, Italy, New Zealand, Turkey, and the Philippines. Straw provided services to the Italian Foreign Ministry as a contractor and passed the written U.S. Foreign Service Officer Test in 1998. A National Merit Scholar, Andrew Straw’s CV can be found here. Straw has lived in the Philippines for over 5 years, starting June 2018, studying disability access in that country, but may one day return to the United States when the human rights violations against him stop.

He is an asylum seeker due to the discrimination and human rights violations of state and federal courts in the USA. Andrew Straw lives just 1374 km from where his father was stationed in Vietnam. See also. Straw is engaging in pro se civil rights and constitutional law reform from a distance.

Straw claims the certiorari system limiting access to the U.S. Supreme Court is unconstitutional under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. If his lawsuit is successful, this will open the gates to 7,000+ appeals to the Supreme Court each year that are arbitrarily denied now without a merits decision in each. Such a reform would be the biggest pro-access change in federal court policy since the American Founding. Straw v. United States, 23-16039 (9th Cir.). He is pursuing these massive changes without any help, pro se and in forma pauperis, after being denied certiorari himself 13x from 2014 to 2022.

Notably, Straw's law license property rights have been denied at all levels, from state trial court to U.S. Supreme Court.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Adrian Tawfik says

    October 12, 2022 at 3:21 pm

    I agree with many of your proposals and I think a more democratic judiciary is a great idea. Nice work!

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

democracy chronicles newsletter

democracy around the web

  • CPJ, partners express alarm over detention of...
    Source: Committee to Protect Journalists Published on: 9 hours ago
  • CPJ joins landmark mission to the Philippines...
    Source: Committee to Protect Journalists Published on: 10 hours ago
  • Montana Plan is not Without Its Skeptics
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 10 hours ago
  • France 24 and RFI broadcasters suspended in T...
    Source: Committee to Protect Journalists Published on: 11 hours ago
  • Hold the Line Coalition welcomes Maria Ressa...
    Source: Committee to Protect Journalists Published on: 12 hours ago