Some thoughts on District Representation for Union County IV: District Representation is not Gerrymandering.

District Representation is one of the major issues before us in Union County. As we move towards a referendum on this issue, I would like to offer a series of thoughts as to how adopting District Representation will benefit Union County.

Some of the opponents of District Representation have looked at the map of the proposed Union County Commissioner Districts and concluded that what they see is a case of Gerrymandering by the Democratic-dominated State House to increase the power of Union County Democrats at the expense of Union County Republicans.

Such accusations are part and parcel of the political process, so it is unsurprising that they have been made. In this case, however, it is inaccurate. After all, the counterclaim could be made that maintaining the current system of at-large representation for all County Commissioners is nothing more than the equivalent of a Republican gerrymander. By drawing the current districts of the County Commissioners to include all of Union County, we effectively maintain districts that are drawn for the advantage of the Republican Party. Perhaps this is why Commissioner Baucom tried to manipulate House Bill 1226 into preserving the current majority – a move that not even the Commissioners who would have benefited most could stomach.

The ultimate test of gerrymandering goes back to the old Latin phrase Qui Bono (Who profits or benefits)? Under the current gerrymandered system, the Republican benefit. If the Democrats wanted to make a power grab via a gerrymandered system, do you honestly think they would draw a series of lines that would leave them in the minority? Do you think that they would include two open seats that would maintain Republicans who might not be able to win in their districts a chance to keep their place on the County Commission instead of requiring one to be from the purported Republican stronghold of the west and another from the purported Democratic stronghold of the East?

The drive to increase representation of the underrepresented is not gerrymandering. It is an attempt to guarantee the type of representative government envisioned by our Founders.

Some thoughts on District Representation for Union County III: District Representation protects all of the Voices in Union County.

District Representation is one of the major issues before us in Union County. As we move towards a referendum on this issue, I would like to offer a series of thoughts as to how adopting District Representation will benefit Union County.

Much has been made of the way District 1 was drawn in the proposed Union County District map. Some have criticized it as a guaranteed Democratic district – one that would assure that Democrats will always have a seat on the currently all Republican County Commission. These critiques usually come from individuals who believe it is currently impossible for a Democrat to be elected in an at-large vote across all of Union County in a partisan race.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, they say little about the districts that currently lean Republican.

Others have praised the way the district has been drawn because it will ensure that African-Americans will have someone who will represent their particular concerns on the County Commission. Others look at this with some suspicion, arguing that it smacks of racism via tokenism or slows racial integration by reinforcing differences rather than seeking to bring people together.

One of the core values of the United States is that the voice of the minority should be protected from the will of the majority. Our Founders were as concerned with the tyranny of the masses as they were with the tyranny of an autocrat or a group of plutocrats or oligarchs. Like it or not, we currently live under a system in Union County where the voice of the minority is not protected. All such systems, like the enforced one party systems of Fascist Europe and the Communist world, have failed because they became far more about the interests of those in power than the interests of the people whom they claimed to represent. Their halls of government became echo chambers, where a single viewpoint appeared to represent the will of many when, instead, it remained the view of a few magnified by repetition of those who were in power or who wished to be connected to those in power.

By moving to District Representation, we will ensure that not only will all groups have a voice in our local government and all ideas will have an opportunity to be heard. In doing so, the ideas and ideologies of all of the residents of Union County will have a place where they can cross-pollinate and produce better solutions to the problems we face – solutions that will take into account all of the needs of Union County rather than just the desires of one group.

Some thoughts on District Representation for Union County II: District Representation will allow our Commissioners to know their constituents' needs.

District Representation is one of the major issues before us in Union County. As we move towards a referendum on this issue, I would like to offer a series of thoughts as to how adopting District Representation will benefit Union County.

One of the real challenges for any elected official is staying in touch with the specific and immediate needs of his constituents while maintining enough breadth of vision to see the big picture and assess long term needs of the community. As the number of voters an office holder represents increases, it becomes harder and harder for a representative to know what the people he represents want. This leaves a representative open to the risk of listening to a handful of voices that claim to represent the interests of their constituents. Sometimes, they do. Sometimes, they represent their own interests rather than the interests of the voters.

While this problem may be more visible at the State and Federal level of government, it is an increasing problem at the local level as well. Consider Union County: The 2008 County Budget will be approximately $216 million dollars. There are any number of interest groups who have the time and resources to hire people whose sole job is to make sure that they get more than their fair share of that just under one quarter of a billion dollar pie. Because their connection to voters is diluted across the whole county, our current Commissioners cannot keep their viewpoints grounded by staying in touch with their constituents. This is not a critique of current or recent Commissioners – it is simply not humanly possible for anyone to stay in touch with approximately 155,000 people (it may be more) on a regular basis.

By moving to District Representation, we will allow our Commissioners to know what their constituents want and need rather than relying on special interests to tell them what their constituents want and need.

Some thoughts on District Representation for Union County I: District Representation Benefits Commisioners and Constituants

District Representation is one of the major issues before us in Union County. As we move towards a referendum on this issue, I would like to offer a series of thoughts as to how adopting District Representation will benefit Union County.

Right now, each of our County Commissioners represent all of the voters of Union County. As such, their constituency is diluted across several groups with very different interests, needs, and outlooks. The most notable of these is the East-West split in the county – a split further complicated by the unique needs of specific municipalities like Monroe.

While it is true that our County Commission is charged with applying their wit and wisdom to serving the county as a whole, they are also charged with representing our needs as individual voters. At some point in the past, when Union County’s population was smaller, less diverse, and more geographically homogeneous, it may have been possible to reconcile these two competing requirements. Given the explosive growth that has brought a variety of new voices to our community’s landscape, it is no longer possible for anyone to adequately balance these tasks.

By moving to district representation, County Commissioners will be able to speak to the specific interests and concerns of their constituents and, in doing so, make sure that all residents of Union County has their concerns represented.

It will also make certain that the residents of Union County know which Commissioner they can contact to make certain that their concerns are heard. Right now, a resident who wants to make their concerns known to the County Commission must attempt to contact all of its members and hope that three of them will listen. While the number of Commissioners that residents need to contact will not change under the district plan, each resident will have a Commissioner who is responsible for representing them and, as such, should be responsive to their needs. They will also still have two other Commissioners, whose responsibility will be to consider the needs of all residents of Union County, to petition for assistance.

Renewing our pledge

“…our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Two-hundred and thirty one years ago, a group of men came together in Philadelphia and made this pledge to one another when they founded our nation. They did not make that pledge lightly. They knew that they were declaring war on the most powerful nation in the world and attempting to do something that had never been done: conduct a revolution that would found a nation which not only derived its power from the people, but made sure that the people retained that power rather than surrender it to a monarch or aristocracy.

That they succeeded was more than amazing. That we have maintained their vision – albeit sometimes imperfectly – is equally remarkable.

What remains is for us is to renew this pledge to one another. That we – as the inheritors of Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Livingston, and Sherman; of Hamilton and the other signatories; and of Washington and the other brave men and women who risked and gave their lives so that we could, in Thomas Paine’s words, “begin the world over again” – once more pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to one another and embrace the rights that liberty grants us and shoulder the burdens and risks that are required for us to maintain and preserve that liberty.

This I pledge to you, dear readers. Happy Fourth of July.

To the Vice President of the United States: A Request

Today, I received an e-mail from the Committee for a Democratic Majority, asking me to sign a petition objecting to Vice President Cheney's absurd assertions that he should not have to obey the law and, as mandated by Executive Order 12958, follow the same rules as everyone else in the Executive Branch for handling information (If you wish to add your name to the petition, you can do so by following this link). I thought I would share what I wrote:

You may remember this line from the past, Mr. Vice President. It was uttered by Joseph Welch when another man entrusted by voters had gone too far: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

I realize that the only way to remove you from office is an Impeachment. There is a more honest and more honorable way -- one that might show that you recognize that your handling of this matter and your self-protective sacrifice of "Scooter" Libby does trouble your conscience.

Resign.

Show the world, Mr. Vice President, that you still have some sense of honor. Resign.

I don't have much hope that the Vice President will listen to my plea. If he is unwilling to listen to the Constitution, who is he willing to listen to?

Letter to the Editor on School Funding

(This Letter to the Editor appeared in the Wednesday, June 13, 2007 edition of The Enquirer Journal. Unfortunately, the Board of Commisioners has not yet changed its position and it looks like they will end up in court over this issue and over their firing of Mike Shalati, who today alleged in his court filing that, in addition to making poor decisions, they broke the law.)

Dear Editor,

When I ran for the School Board this past election cycle, one of the cornerstones of my campaign was an equitable distribution of our educational resources so that all of the children of Union County would have a fair chance at building a bright future for themselves. Such a promise is at the heart of public education and our national ideal – a goal that is founded upon our highest belief that we are all created equal.

In order to protect this equality, we entrust our elected officials to oversee our public affairs wisely and judiciously. We do so with the full knowledge that they will have to face difficult decisions and balance the needs of some against the needs of others. It is, in many ways, a thankless job as there are always those who will second-guess the decisions made.

Yet some decisions are so poorly made that I wonder how they could have been conceived. Apparently, the Board of Commissioners can find the money for questionable expenses, including $1 million for a new pump station that more than a few people have pointed out is a handout to developers rather than a service to the people of Union County. They also found money to pay $75 an hour for a public relations consultant, until she left the position at the beginning of May.

Money can be found for these expenses but not for the basic operating costs requested by the Board of Education?

As seems all too usual with these Commissioners, the lack of funding will disproportionately impact the eastern half of Union County and, ironically enough, those schools which most need this support.

This is not a political issue. The School Board is a non-partisan elected body that consists of people from all parts of the political spectrum who, I am pleased to report, are all interested in what is best for the children of Union County. It is a question of the competence and values of the County Commissioners who refuse to make the responsible decisions that are needed to support the children of Union County.

I urge all readers to make their displeasure known to the Board of Commissioners in the hope that they will reverse their decision.

Sincerely,

Matthew M. DeForrest