Both in the E.U. and U.S., the
member-states are semi-sovereign, and are even guaranteed all residual
sovereignty that is not in any of the enumerated competencies (i.e., powers) of
the respective unions and the states. Europeans are smart to have multiple
avenues for the state governments in the European Council and the Council of
Ministers so those governments can protect themselves against encroachment by
the Commission. To be sure, these safeguards go too far, especially given the sheer
number of states even by the mid-2020s, in giving each state a veto especially
on important matters in which qualified-majority voting does not apply. In
other words, the safeguards against federal encroachment in the E.U. are
excessive as long as each state can wield its veto against federal policies, legislation,
and regulations. Regarding the latter, the directive means provides each state
with some latitude. I suspect that the Europeans who constructed the E.U.’s
federal system were in part fearful of federal encroachment because so much of
that had already built-up in the U.S., where federal consolidation had become a
threat to the governmental sovereignty of the member-states, as if they were
just regions rather than republics holding even more sovereignty, on parchment
at least, than does Congress and the federal president. So, it is worth taking
not of the rare instances in which a state legislature pushes back against
threats from the U.S. president on a competency (i.e., enumerated power)
reserved by the states. The rejection by
the Indiana Senate of U.S. President Trump’s pressure to accept new districts
for U.S. House representatives from Indiana—a map in which the Republican Group
would likely pick up two seats—is important because Congressional-district maps
are the prerogative of the states rather than an encroaching federal executive.
According to Article 1, Section
4 of the U.S. basic law (consolidated as a constitution), the member-states
have the primary authority to regulate the “times, places, and manner” of the
U.S. House or Representatives’ elections. This authority includes enacting the
boundaries of the districts within a state. To be sure, Congress has been
delegated authority to override a state’s Congressional-district map, as
federal oversight is in line with the “checks and balances” feature of modern
federalism. For instance, a state’s map that discriminates against regions
populated mostly by a racial minority would be ripe for Congressional action. It
is significant that the U.S. president plays no role either in crafting such
maps or in oversight. Therefore, U.S. President Trump’s threats laid against certain
senators in the Indiana Senate so they would pass a new Congressional map
before the next census so to give Trump’s Republican group in the U.S. House of
Representatives more representation than otherwise would likely be the case was
a case of federal encroachment of a state power encased in the U.S.
Constitution. The Indiana senators voted prudently and justifiably in rejecting
the U.S. President’s “bully tactics.”
Senator Michael Crider, a
Republican, who faced “threats of violence and intimidation,” issued a
statement after he voted no on the redistricting proposal.[1]
“When you get kind of bullied and threatened, if that tactic works, then you
can expect to deal with that for the rest of your political career.”[2]
Sen. Vaneta Becker issued the following statement: “I think this looks like and
feels like bullying, and I don’t think Hoosiers respond well to bullying.”[3]
Neither, I might add, do Illinoisians on the other side of the Wabash river, to
whom people from the Indiana side of the river-border used to shout, “Whos you’r,”
hence the mascot, “Hoosier”, instead of who are you?
The same consequences of
giving into a bully can be said of a state legislature; once it capitulates to threats
and pressure from the federal executive (or Congress), threats will be more
likely to continue and even become more dire until the member-state legislators
are afraid to use even the powers reserved for the states. In the case of the
redistricting plan, President Trump even threatened the Indiana government that
federal funds would be cut off from the state in retaliation for not approving
the president’s partisan plan. Sen. Spencer Deery made the problem of encroachment
on the state explicit: “As long as I have breath, I will use my voice to resist
a federal government that attempts to bully, direct and control this state or
any state. Giving the federal government more power is not conservative.”[4]
That a prerogative of a state legislature could be circumvented “at the whim of
a president’s request” was too much for Sen. Mike Bohacek too.[5]
Therefore, both in terms of threatening Indiana lawmakers, who have been
democratically elected, and in terms of eclipsing federalism, wherein the vital
element of checks-and-balances between the federal institutions and those of
states, the political courage of the Indiana Republican senators who voted
against President Trump’s partisan plan is laudable. Threats of violence have
no place in politics, and efforts to usurp the governmental sovereignty that is
reserved for the states, whether in the U.S. or E.U., should be resisted lest
the check-and-balance “oversight” feature of modern, dual-sovereignty,
federalism be lost.
Fortunately, the “acts of
intimidation and threats and acts of violence targeting [Republican Indiana]
senators who opposed” the proposal backfired, as a majority of the 40
Republican senators voted against the bill.[6]
Ironically, politically conservative principles were cited by some of those
senators. The head of the Republican Group in the Indiana Senate, Sen. Rodric
Bray, said, “many of my caucus members don’t think redrawing our Congressional
map mid-cycle is a guaranteed way for Indiana.”[7]
In short, changing maps for partisan purposes mid-way through a decade violates
the tradition of redrawing maps only just after the U.S. census, which occurs once
every decade. As per conservative principles, Bray urged Republicans to
campaign more so as to sway a district that was then held by a Democrat but becoming
increasingly Republican. As the saying goes, elections have consequences.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
