OP-ED: We Don’t Have Meaningful Representation

OP-ED: RESPONSE TO SHAWN WILSON
By Robert Broussard

Mr. Wilson:

I have thoroughly examined, re-examined, and contemplated the recent article you published with Citizens for a New Louisiana, “Why Does My Congresswoman Live 3.5 Hours Away?” I will offer the short answer to your question now and get it out of the way. It is because you were sold out.

The Louisiana Congressional District 5 boundaries you complain of were drawn for one specific, illegal purpose. To give Louisiana a second majority-minority district. Louisiana Congressional 6 snakes all the way from Baton Rouge to Shreveport. That district was intended for Cleo Fields from the start. Unfortunately, Elbert Guillory never had a chance. He was sold out by the members of his own party so that some other members of the same party could benefit from having Cleo Fields out of their way. With Representative Fields seated in Washington, that trade-off will likely have other unintended consequences at the federal level and on the Trump agenda. Be sure to pay careful attention to the close margins in upcoming votes.

The map was also drawn with severe intentional weaknesses. Those deficiencies were put in place so the map would fail eventually. The passage of the illegally gerrymandered map, while it allowed the seat to be seized upon by Fields, also prevented the drawing of district lines by the legislature from being usurped by an all-knowing Federal Judge. That would explain the coalescing of Governor Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. So, while the map was allowed to remain in place for the 2024 election, you can expect it will change. This is my assessment of the situation. You can take it or leave it.

It is frustrating…

You indicated that it is frustrating that your congresswoman lives 3.5 hours away from your home city and asked, “How can someone that far away really represent me, my neighbors, or my community?” The answer is simple – they can’t. But the issue doesn’t have much to do with the distance between you and the elected congresswoman (who is frequently in the Baton Rouge area, by the way). Technology has allowed us to bridge vast distances and communicate concerns to people halfway around the globe at the speed of light. The real issue you seem to have is that this person’s address appears to preclude her from having any genuine interest in your community.

Would it be any different if Denise Marcelle, the State Representative from your City (Baton Rouge), was your elected U.S. Representative? How would Marcelle better represent you, your neighbors, or your community? Would she better represent your interest in matters of immigration? Fiscal policy? Foreign policy? If you did not vote for her and she disagrees with your views, does she really represent you and your interests? The problem here lies in what is meant by the term “representative.”

Representative of what?

Your political representative in the United States House of Representatives is not the same as using the term representative in other common respects. When you hire a lawyer to represent you, they must follow your course of action. If they disagree with that course of action, they can step down. If you don’t agree with their abilities or actions, you can replace them immediately. This action would require no petition for recall. No waiting for another election to ‘vote the bum out.’ You fire them.

Your political representative is not bound to do what you say for them to do. Nor is your political representative a “trustee.” Trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the beneficiaries. While your political representative may be a temporary caretaker, similar to a trustee, do they really represent you meaningfully? Do they provide for preserving “the trust” or (for that matter) trust in general? Do you trust them to have the best interest of you and your posterity?

Representation Matters

You also indicated that the system in Louisiana is “broken,” “representation matters,” and that the people “deserve to have their voices heard.” I’m not here to argue against your conclusions or tell you your frustrations are misplaced. I tend to agree, but my assessment follows different lines.

The broken system you refer to lacks meaningful representation but is not unique to Louisiana. The very political office that prompted your writing is a federal position. I do understand the map of contention was adopted by state officials, but I think we should explore the position of U.S. Representative from the federal perspective beginning with the Constitution. For a good discussion on this topic and others, I would refer you to “The Founding Fathers’ Guide to the Constitution” by Dr. Brion McClanahan.

Article I, Section2 as changed by the Fourteenth Amendment, provides, in part:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative.

The proportion of representatives to actual people was debated at the Philadelphia Convention. Direct election of representatives to the central government concerned some, like Elbridge Gerry, who stated in the early days of the convention, “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.” It was Nathaniel Gorham and none other than George Washington in the last days of the convention who pushed for the ratio to be set at 1/30,000 in opposition to measures that provided fewer representatives per person. Washington reasoned a ratio of 1/40,000 did not secure the “right and interest of the people.” Others felt the 1/30,000 ratio likewise didn’t protect the people.

The Debate Continued

Melancton Smith, who was an opponent of the Constitution, stated:

“Can the liberties of three millions of people be securely trusted in the hands of twenty-four men? Is it prudent to commit to so small a number the decision of the great questions which will come before them? Reason revolts at the idea.”

Smith was referring to the fact that under the proposed ratio of representatives, the central government could be controlled by as few as twenty-four men who constituted a quorum and a majority. This number was a 30% reduction in terms of representation when compared to the existing Articles of Confederation.

A minority of dissenters from the Pennsylvania ratifying convention took to the press. Their concerns are illustrated in this statement:

“Thus it appears that the liberties, happiness, interests, and great concerns of the whole United States may be dependent upon the integrity, virtue, wisdom, and knowledge of 25 or 26 men. How inadequate and unsafe a representation! Inadequate because the sense and views of 3 or 4 millions of people diffused over so extensive a territory comprising such various climates, products, habits, interests, and opinions cannot be collected in so small a body.”

This concern was voiced long before the expansive growth and nationalization of almost every aspect of American life. At this time, the central authority was viewed as subservient to the states. In fact, the states had not yet formed the union under the Constitution. 

No Meaningful Representation

Individuals were also concerned that the representation level could be too large to provide meaningful representation. Is that possible? There were attempts in the first proposed amendment of the Bill of Rights to address the issue again. James Madison, in Federalist No. 58, pointed out that this would have been a body too large to do business. Had those measures passed, the current U.S. House of Representatives would have in excess of 6,000 members. But conversely, what would the founders think of today’s ratio of representation?

The fact is the ratio of representation has been slipping for some time. The first reapportionment act signed into law by President Washington saw a decrease in ratio from 1/30,000 to 1/33,000. Just over one hundred years later (1890), that number was 1/173,901. Steps were taken in 1911 to cap the number of U.S. Representatives at 435. At that time, the ratio was 1/210,328, and Louisiana had 8 Representatives. We have 6 Representatives today, and the ratio has swelled to 1:761,169.

At the risk of deviating from the topic’s core, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the destructive changes to our State’s representation in the Senate. At the same time, the ratio remains steady, with each state having two Senators; a fundamental change was made by adopting the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Here, we traded what was one of the last components of federalism for a more democratic system. Instead of our Senators being selected by the legislatures of each State to represent the interest of the State, they are now directly elected by the voters. Mob rule!

It’s Time for Change

You are also correct when you state it is time for a change. You said: “We need a system where representatives live close enough to know their communities and fight for their needs.” This is a decentralization plea. Again, I agree, but I am somewhat torn with the statement. It is not that I disagree with the spirit of your statement; it is just that the national government in Washington, D.C., should not be able to exert power and authority over the affairs of our everyday lives. But the reality is that they do, and until we can address the Leviathan that has taken hold, I can’t say your statement is misplaced.

I am not optimistic that the close-minded politicians who tend to make their way to Washington, D.C., have the imagination to craft a plan for meaningful representation. Many of them don’t want change anyway. Anything that threatens the status quo threatens their sphere of power and influence. We could fantasize about a situation where hundreds of U.S. Representatives were elected in the State of Louisiana. Those hundreds would then have to select a much smaller delegation to take seats in Congress each year for it to be meaningful. That would be an easy solution to increase representation while maintaining the size of Congress to be an effective body. But would that fix the problem?

Closer to home

Presently, in Louisiana, hundreds of state representatives meet in Baton Rouge to address our state’s affairs. Do you feel any more or less connected to them? Are they adequately addressing your concerns? Do they provide meaningful representation? From my perspective, they don’t. So, we are still faced with the same problem.

The frustration you feel and that you courageously articulated in your article is genuine. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will ever go away. We will always have that feeling as long as we believe that the “representatives” are supposed to represent our interests. They will never truly represent you. They will never be 100% aligned with your values. In many cases, they will be diametrically opposed to your interests and your values.

That frustration will likely only subside under two scenarios: 1) There is a significant change in our system of government, whether that be through secession, massive decentralization, overhauling of the federal apparatus, etc. (not likely); or 2) You come to the realization and accept the fact that you aren’t represented. You ARE ruled! Now pay your taxes and shut up already.

###