Gerrymandering : "Some are more Equal than Others"

"Redistricting" is the process by which congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn after each decennial census. Federal law requires that districts must have nearly equal populations, and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.


Presently, Illinois elects 18 U. S. Representatives and 177 state legislators. They are elected from Congressional and State Legislative districts. (U. S. Senators are elected statewide - not from districts).


From the earliest days of the Republic, the political party in power in a state has engaged in "Gerrymandering." "Gerrymandering" is the "art" of drawing or re-drawing the lines of Congressional and Legislative districts to enhance the chances of the party in power remaining in power at subsequent elections. It is rather like tilting the pool table so all the balls roll into the desired hole.


Imagine a state with three Congressmen, elected from three districts. Imagine further a state roughly split 50/50 between Republican and Democrat voters. Also imagine that the Republicans control the state legislature, which is charged with re-drawing the districts. Finally, imagine them re-drawing the district lines to create one district where Democrat voters have a 70-30% majority, and two districts where the Republicans have 60-40% majorities.

Governor Gerry of Massachusetts did essentially 1812. To accomplish his purpose, Gerry drew a misshapen districts. Because it appeared to have the shape of a salamander, an outranged Federalist editor labeled his efforts, "Gerrymandering."


Madeleine Doubek, is the executive director of a group known as the "Coalition for Honest and New Government Ethics."Her group, "Change Illinois," wants to reform the way that Illinois draws its State legislative and Federal congressional districts to eliminate "Gerrymandering."


Under Change Illinois' plan, the senior Democratic and senior Republican justices on the Illinois Supreme Court would name 17 members to an "independent commission" that would draw the maps, with 11 of the 17 needed to approve a map.


The plan would require the commission to follow the provisions of the Illinois Voting Rights Act to preserve "minority districts." Prison inmates would be counted for redistricting purposes. Elected public officials would be banned from serving on the commission. If you believe that this plan will result in non-partisan redistricting, you probably also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.


Supposition #1: The Senior Democrat and Republican justices on the Illinois Supreme Court will make their selections in a non-partisan fashion. Really? When was the last time, the Illinois Supreme Court decided a "redistricting case," other than along party lines? Why in a recent Supreme Court "retention" election, did a justice receive $10,000,000 in campaign donation? To guaranty he'd be "non-partisan?"


Supposition #2. Barring elected officials from serving on the commission will insure that those appointed will be non-partisan. Do you really think a partisan Supreme Court Justice will be unable to find partisan appointed public officials to serve? A partisan businessmen? A partisan union official? A partisan next door neighbor?


Supposition #3. It's okay to Gerrymander to "preserve minority districts." But if you draw lines to incorporate a sufficient number of a given minority to "preserve a minority district," don't you at the same time disadvantage everybody else, including other minorities, in that district? Taken to its logical conclusion, if you "preserve" District #1for minority "A," don't you have to "preserve" District 2 for minority "B?" Or are you only anxious to guaranty representation for Minority "A" while at the same time telling Minorities "B," "C," "D, and "E," "Not all minorities deserve their own Districts." Then again, if you create a half dozen districts to insure "representation" for all your
favored minorities, what of the rights of the majority?


Today, the Republicans Gerrymander to facilitate the election of Republicans, and the Democrats Gerrymander to facilitate the Election of Democrats. If such traditional Gerrymandering is bad, why is it okay to Gerrymander to create safe Districts to guaranty minority representation, when you know damn well you are doing it because you have a firm expectation that "that minority" will vote for your party? How does this jive with Federal law that provides that the re-districting must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.


It is an undeniable truth that if a district is re-drawn to favor Minority A, that that re-districting will disfavor the majority as well as all other minorities. As the pigs wrote in Orwell's "Animal Farm:" "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."


If you really want to get politics out of re-districting, and exterminate the "evil Gerrymander," there's a simple, fool-proof way of doing it. I've explained before. I'll explain again next time.

This piece was published originally in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 28, 2020

Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea

The "Priest Shortage" - What Hasn't Already Been Tried?

Recently the Catholic bishop of Peoria sent his representative to our parish to encourage vocations to the priesthood. He preached to a congregation of men and women, 60 to 80 years-old.

The Catholic Church is short of priests. So, what's the solution?

Through most of the first-half of the twentieth century, the US Catholic Church had an adequate number of priests. In the 1950s, my parish had a pastor and three assistants. When Father Lee first came to Sacred Heart as Pastor, he generally had two assistants. Our two most recent pastors have generally had one assistant, but our former pastor at times worked alone. Presently our assistant is a missionary.

The shortage, however, is not confined to the US.

In October 2019, Pope Francis convened a synod of South American bishops to discuss, among other issues, the shortage of priests in the Amazon region.

Cardinal Hummes, (retired Archbishop, Sao Paulo) the lead organizer of the synod, stated the priest shortage has led to an “almost total absence of the Eucharist and other sacraments essential for daily Christian life [in the Amazon region]. ... It will be necessary to define new paths for the future.” Hence, the Synod's Working Paper stated:

"Affirming that celibacy is a gift for the Church, it is requested that for the most remote areas of the region, the possibility of priestly ordination be studied for older people, preferably indigenous, respected and accepted by the community, even if they have an existing and stable family, in order to insure the availability of Sacraments that ... sustain Christian life."

On 26 October 2019, by an affirmative vote of 128 to 41, the Synod, in its Final Document, took a half-step, proposing that married permanent deacons be ordained as priests for the region "in extreme situations.

"Many of the Church communities in the Amazonian territory have enormous difficulties in attending the Eucharist. Sometimes it takes ... several years before a priest can return to a community to celebrate the Eucharist, [hear confessions] or anoint the sick ....

"We appreciate celibacy as a gift of God ... [It] enables the missionary, ordained to the priesthood, to dedicate himself fully to the service of the Holy People of God. ....

"[But] we know that this discipline "is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood" although there are many practical reasons for it. In his encyclical on priestly celibacy, St. Paul VI ... set out theological, spiritual and pastoral motivations that support it. ... St. John Paul II ... confirmed this tradition in the Latin Church.

"Considering that legitimate diversity does not harm the ... unity of the Church, but rather ... serves it - witness the plurality of existing rites and disciplines.

"[Therefore] we propose that criteria ... be established by competent authority, within the framework of Lumen Gentium 26, to ordain as priests suitable and respected men of the community with a legitimately constituted and stable family, who have had a fruitful permanent diaconate and receive an adequate formation for the priesthood, in order to sustain the life of the Christian community through the preaching of the Word and the celebration of the Sacraments in the most remote areas of the Amazon region."

The Final Paper, not unexpectedly, did not meet with unanimous approval.

Some felt ordaining only those married men with previous service as permanent deacons, would not produce enough priests to alleviate the crisis. Others, like Cardinal Walter Brandmüller condemned the proposal as "heretical," contradicting "binding Church teaching in decisive points."

Pope Francis has now replied to the synod, writing Querida Amazonia"

"87. ... the exclusive character received in Holy Orders qualifies the priest alone to preside at the Eucharist. That is his particular, principal and non-delegable function.



"89. In the specific circumstances of the Amazon region, particularly in its forests and more remote places, a way must be found to ensure this priestly ministry.

"90. This urgent need leads me to urge all bishops, especially those in Latin America, not only to promote prayer for priestly vocations, but also to be more generous in encouraging those who display a missionary vocation to opt for the Amazon region"

But hasn't praying for priestly vocations, and encouraging missionary vocations already been tried? Time will tell if more prayers and encouragement do the job?

A married Anglican friend, after retiring from a long teaching career, decided to serve his church as a deacon. To his proposal, his bishop responded, "I don't need deacons; I need priests." After completing the prescribed training, my friend was ordained. He now serves as an Anglican priest.

Another friend, a long-time Anglican priest, wanted to become a Catholic priest. With Pope Benedict XVI's permission, though married with teenage children, he was ordained a Catholic priest. He served our parish as such until he re-located to serve in Colorado.

An abbreviate verison of this piece was published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 23, 2020

Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea

Illinois' new version of the "Trojan Horse"

                            

Illinois presently has a 4.95% "Flat Rate" income tax. 

In the November 2020 election, Illinois voters will be asked to approve a new "Progressive" income tax. A "progressive income tax" is a "graduated income tax," as opposed to a "flat rate tax." Our Democrat Governor and his Democrat cronies in the legislature call their new "graduated income tax"  a "Fair Tax" to gull the gullible.

But what is a "Fair Tax?" This "Fair Tax" is any "graduated income" tax at whatever rates the legislature hereafter approves and the governor signs. 

Here's how the con works. Your Democrat Legislature, at the request of Democrat Governor Pritzker, has by law already set the "graduated income tax rates" which will take effect as soon as the voters approve amending the Illinois Constitution to permit their "Fair Tax." Those rates are a scam. 

To induce the gullible to approves their "Fair ("graduated") Income Tax" referendum, the Democrats in the Legislature have set the following rates:

For single or joint filers with incomes up to $10,000, the rate will be 4.75%. (Present "Flat Tax" rate: 4.95%.) If your income is $10K, your tax savings will be $20.

For single or joint filers with incomes over $10,000 and up to $100,000, the rate will be 4.90%. On $100K, you'd save $50.

For single or joint filers with incomes $100,000 and up to $250,000. the rate will be 4.95%.Your tax savings will be $0.

The rate increases to 7.75% if you file single and have an income over $250K up to $350K; or if you file jointly, and your income is over $250K  and up to $500K.

The rate increases to 7.85% if you file single and have an income over $350K up to $750K; or if you file jointly, and your income is over $500K  and up to $1M..

The rate increases to 7.99% if you file single and have an income over $750K; or if you file jointly, and your income is over $1M.

So, if your income is not greater than $250,000, you may ask what's so bad about ole Pritzker's "Fair Tax?"

Imagine that you are in the market for a new home. You find one you really like. The "asking price" for the house is$150,000. You arrive at closing, but a hitch develops:

Seller. Oh, by the way, the "asking price" was only my "asking price;" it is not my "final price."

You. What? Well, what is your final price?

Seller. I can only give you a "ball park" price now. Sign the papers, and I'll give you the "final price" maybe a month from now.

Would you sign the closing papers and agree to buy a house without knowing the"final price?"

Or would you be a bit wary that the seller might be engaging in the old "bait and switch?" Recall the "asking price" was $150,000? Would you sign the papers in blank trusting that his "final price"would not be $300,000? $500,000?

If you put a new furnace in your home, would you make a check out to "Harry's Furnace Service," sign your name and tell Harry, "Just put in whatever amount you feel is fair."

Now why am I giving examples of "bait and switch?

Right now - unless you approve the November referendum - the  Democrats in the Illinois legislature cannot impose any "graduated" or "progressive" income tax. To get power to impose their "Fair ("graduated") Tax," the Democrats in the Legislature need you to approve their referendum. Approval requires either the approval of 60% of voters voting on the question, or greater than 50% approval from all voters who cast ballots in the election.

Once you have approved their referendum, you have given them a "blank check."Stuck your head in the lion's mouth. Opened the gates of Troy and welcomed in the Trojan Horse with rapacious Greeks lurking in its belly.

Once you hand Democrats the Constitutional power to impose a "graduated" or "progressive" income tax, they can change the rate at their will. The day after you approve the Constitutional Amendment authorizing a "Graduated Income Tax," the Democrat legislators can go back into session and double, triple or quadruple the rates. You are giving them a "blank check" to insert whatever rates they want. 

If you don't think Democrats will raise the rate whenever they think they need more money, think again. Look what happened after the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed authorizing the Federal Graduated Income Tax. In 1913, the bottom bracket paid 1%; the top, 7%. Today, Federal rates range from 10% to 37%! During WWII, the top bracket was 90%.

I don't mention Republicans because the are a virtually extinct species in Springfield. 

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 14, 2020

Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea