Tag: VA 5th congressional district

Break Glass in Emergency: Vote Yes by April 21 in Virginia’s Redistricting Referendum

If things were normal, which they are not, I would oppose returning the drawing of Virginia’s congressional district maps back to the state’s legislature, even temporarily.  America is in deep trouble, however. Democracy is in retreat; the country is ruled by decree out of the White House. Congress sits mute.  A President ruling from his gold encrusted throne threatens to “nationalize” the elections and seems indifferent to his paramilitary police brutalizing communities and shooting and killing citizens.

The Constitution – our written social contract as to how the government is organized and how power is shared – is shredded day-by-day by Trump.  Our representative in the 5th District, John McGuire just voted for the Save Act to make it harder for Americans to vote and agrees with Trump’s call for Republicans to nationalize the vote, or at the least, has not repudiated Trump’s demand.  He thinks he works for Trump and not we the people of his district.  It is time to fight back, it is time to b break the glass because there is a constitutional emergency.

The fastest and best way to check Trump’s unchecked power is by electing Democrats to the House of Representatives – the people’s house – and the senate.  Sensing a coming defeat this November and a loss of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, Trump demanded that red states redraw their congressional districts, immediately.  If you can’t win fair and square, cheat, lie, and steal is this administration’s mantra.

Texas obliged instantly, without consulting their people.  Another example of rule by dictate far too common in red states.  At least the people of California had a choice whether to redistrict (they voted ‘yes’ this past November).  We the people of Virginia will have our chance to give voice to whether we redistrict.  That vote is April 21.  Early voting starts March 3.   

Democrats did not ask for this redistricting fight, but Trump threw down the gauntlet.  We the people of Virginia must take drastic steps to reclaim sovereignty or lose our democracy to one-party rule and dictatorship. 

Vote YES to temporarily redistrict Virginia’s congressional seats.  

For those constitutional law geeks like me, below are some Frequently Asked Question:

How many other states are redistricting (or counter redistricting) based on Trump’s outrageous demand?

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, five states have already redistricted (Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, California); A number of states have introduced legislation to redistrict (Maryland, South Carolina, Washington, and Virginia):  Florida is in the process of adopting legislation with additional states contemplating redistricting, but awaiting state court decisions (Alabama, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wisconsin).  Other states have already moved forward and many plan to do so.  Indiana rejected Trump’s redistricting demand.

Why does Virginia need a vote on whether to redistrict its congressional districts?

In November 2020, Virginians voted overwhelming (66 percent) to amend the state’s constitution to appoint a 16-member bipartisan commission to draw Virginia’s congressional districts.  Virginia is one of about a dozen states that have independent commissions to draw congressional maps.  A majority (29) still permit their state legislatures to draw congressional districts.  The referendum vote in April is the only constitutionally sanctioned method to temporarily amend our state constitution so that the Generally Assembly can redraw Virginia’s congressional districts.  

Why hasn’t the Supreme Court ruled that partisan redistricting is unconstitutional?

They did rule, by not ruling.  They took the easy way out and said it was out of their hands, that there were no ‘judicially discoverable’ or ‘manageable standards’ to adjudicate claims of unconstitutionally drawn districts, with one exception, drawing districts to favor white voters (e.g., diluting concentrations of black or brown voices into majority white districts).

A brief recent history:  In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts could hear challenges to how congressional districts were drawn, however, the court offered no standards.  Some years later in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled there were no “judicially discoverable or manageable standards.”  The conservative court inches it way toward legalizing partisan gerrymandering.

In 2019, in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme court ruled that federal courts could not hear claims of partisan gerrymandering because they – the court — could not articulate any standard by which to judge partisan gerrymandering.  Out of very thin air, they could invent the legal fiction that President Trump is immune from crimes committed for official acts, but these Harvard and Yale legal brains are damned clueless as to how to fix the scourge of gerrymandering.  This legal punt basically legalizes partisan gerrymandering no matter how egregious, at least at the federal court level.  State courts can still hear cases, nonetheless.

To make matters worse, the Rucho decision gave states a “partisan” get-out-of- constitutional jail card for race-based gerrymandering.  In 2024, South Carolina drew racially gerrymandered congressional districts.  The South Carolina NAACP sued.  South Carolian argued it was not racial gerrymandering, but ‘partisan’ gerrymandering.  In a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with South Carolina and let the racially drawn maps stand.

After Texas redrew its congressional districts after Trump requested it do so, The League of United Latin American Citizens sued.  A federal district court, after 9 days of testimony and review of thousands of documents, concluded that Texas illegally redrew the congressional districts based on race.  In a shadow docket ruling, however, the Supreme Court, overturned the district court and said Texas could use the newly drawn maps.  

The reasons given by the Supreme Court’s were: 1) The District Court failed to “honor the presumption of legislative good faith;” 2) The District Court did not produce a viable alternative map; 3) It was too close to the election to redraw the redrawn congressional maps.   My only response:  What the fuck!  I did not know there was a ‘legislative good faith’ exemption to unconstitutional laws.

So, there you have it.  Go out and vote. And vote Yes.  

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

For three plus years my wife and I were volunteer repair program managers for Charlottesville’s Habitat for Humanity program in Louisa.  The repair program primarily focused on ensuring folks could safely get in and out of their homes.  This included repairing or replacing decks or stoops and stairs, replacing or repairing exterior doors, installing ramps.  We also replaced or fixed window, siding, soffits, gutters, and the occasional roof.  The work was all done by volunteers.  One year I put 2500 miles on my truck supporting Habitat projects, which reflects the demand for housing aid in Louisa County.

Whether or not a project went forward after the initial survey and scope of work was completed, depended on the client’s income.  They had to make at or less than 50 percent of the average marginal income for the county.   Our typical client was female, over 65, widowed, earning between $8 to $24K per year.  The bulk of that from Social Security.  To say the least, they struggled to keep maintain their homes.  Most had worked their entire adult lives yet have economically drifted downwards into poverty once they can work no longer.  

No defined pensions, marginal savings if any.  The only wealth they have was tied up in their home and land, but without being able to maintain the home or land, its value shrinks.  Given the absence of affordable housing in the county, the elderly who want to maintain their independence and local connections have two basic choices:  Sell and move out of the county or stay in a decaying home.  The Fluvanna-Louisa Housing Foundation is working solutions for this conundrum of Louisa’s elderly, pulling an indifferent Board of Supervisors along with it.

The reasons for the statistic regarding our primary clients are myriad, but three primary causes stand out. Women tend to get paid less than their male counterparts, even if they worked the same job. This continues to this day.  Additionally, women of the generation we tended to work with were limited to careers they could work in, which in many instances, were lower paid.  Finally, during childbearing years, women usually had to quit work or take long periods of unpaid leave.  A triple whammy. Social Security benefits are tied to one’s annual income and lifelong earnings.  So, after decades of work and sacrifices, women tend to have accumulated less Social Security benefits and retirement savings.  Their reward?  Poverty.

The ‘big, beautiful bill’ will add misery to the county, especially to our elderly on fixed limited incomes.  For instance, our elderly clients typically pay Medicare premiums out of their Social Security benefits.  For those that cannot afford Medicare premiums, which I imagine were most of them, there used to be financial assistance through the Medicare Savings Program (MSP).  The beautiful bill cuts or eliminates assistance.  The MSP cuts could force enrollees who earn less than $24K a year to pay an additional $3000 out of pocket for Medicare premiums, potentially $8k if a couple.  Our average client will be devastated economically, to say nothing about the impacts to their health care should they lose Medicare insurance, such as access to prescriptions.  

Speaking of health care, cuts to Medicaid will indirectly impact access to health care for the elderly in rural areas such as Louisa.  Rural hospitals and clinics rely on Medicaid payments to stay in business. Less income will result in closures.  About 17 percent of Louisa residents rely on Medicaid.  Louisa is already a medical care desert as it is, and it will get worse after this bill.  No hospital, no public health clinics (except for Central Virginia Health Services, a non-profit group), and no private urgent care type facilities (not profitable enough for them to come to Louisa).  I imagine that the number of doctor offices we do have will shrink.

Shifting money to the wealthy.  The bill does provide for a senior tax deduction.  If you earn more in income benefits, you can claim a larger tax deduction.  For instance, if you are 65 or older, earn up to $75K, these folks can claim a $6500 tax deduction.  Our typical client would not benefit from this tax deduction at all.  

This senior tax deduction is another way of transferring wealth to older, wealthier folks, and short shifting the young.  Contrast the $6500 senior tax deduction with the $200 dollar increase in childcare tax deduction from $2000 to $2200 per year.  I thought we loved our children.  In Virginia, the average infant childcare cost is $14k per year, about $11K for a four-year-old.  Overall, these types of tax breaks will accelerate the depletion of the Social Security Trust Fund.  Basically, now 2033.  

The bill is big, but it is not beautiful, it is damn ugly, like the spaghetti western, the good, the bad and the ugly.  Mostly the latter two.  It attacks the poor, marginalizes working class women, and transfers immense wealth to the upper classes, leaving many to struggle mightily for safe housing, food security, and access to health care.  About 60 percent of the bill’s financial benefits will go to 20 percent of the population.  12 million folks will lose access to health care insurance.  Millions of working-class folks will lose access to food aid because of “paperwork barriers” designed to reduce the number of enrollees.  Yet, with these “savings” we are going to build a police state through $150 billion in increased funding for DHS agents and a trillion-dollar defense budget.  

Our 5th Congressional District representative John McGuire voted for the bill and issued an ingratiating, bootlicking, suck-up press release fit for North Korea, not America, on the cusp of 250 years of independence from Kings. Like a sucker fish on a shark, McGuire is attached to Trump’s big, beautiful orange ass.

A dear John Letter: A Response to a Letter from Representative John McGuire

Below is a response to an email I received from Virginia’s 5th Congressional District Representative John McGuire. It was written in response to a letter or email I sent to him. I am appreciative and grateful for his response. I expected it would be one of those form letters, pandering and short on substance.

To my delight it was long, specific, and expressed his world view and take on recent controversial actions by the Trump administration, in particular the alleged unlawful deportation of hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador’s maximum security prison. To my dismay, it demonstrates a fundamental break in who is and who is not entitled to basic constitutional rights.

The letter below is my response. I will mail him a hard copy.

Dear Mr. McGuire:

Thank you for your email dated March 28, regarding the recent deportation of hundreds of Venezuelans alleged to belong to a criminal gang to an El Salvadoran maximum security prison. I appreciate your candor and directly addressing my concerns. However, I would like you to consider some of my observations regarding your response. They are based on my 29 years of federal law enforcement experiences.

In your letter you stated that “Law enforcement spent weeks drafting the list of deportees to make sure all were connected to the violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.”  Adding, that if some were mistakenly identified as a gang member, it really didn’t matter because they were in the country illegally: “I am aware there has been some discourse surrounding whether all those deported were connected to Tren de Aragua. I have full faith in our law enforcement, but on the rare chance that some of those who were deported happen to not be gang members they were still here illegally and therefore have committed a crime.”   

I would rather have 150 guilty men go free than imprison 50 innocent men.  It is cruel to send someone who would maybe get six months in a U.S. minimum security prison, than an indefinite stay at a high risk maximum security prison in El Salvador. Cruel and unusual punishment don’t you think?

What you didn’t mention is that despite a Federal District judges order to stop the deportations and return the flights pending hearings for the deportees, the government deported them anyway.  Claiming they were over ‘international waters.’  How could this be if they were over the Gulf of America?  

I believe your claim that you venerate our Constitution, but you seem unaware that our great Constitution has a Habeas Corpus clause.  That is the government must produce “the body” in a court so that the defendant has a right to challenge the charges and their detention.  Basically, that their arrest and confinement were legal.  This fundamental legal concept goes all the way back to the Magna Carta.  That is an 850-year-old tradition bequeathed to us by the British.  And Trump throws it out like yesterday’s trash.  The Judge’s order to stop the deportation was basically a Writ of Habeas Corpus in name and spirit.

I think we can both agree with the proposition that all inhabitants of the United States, regardless of citizenship or immigrant status have the following basic, fundamental human rights we cherish as a nation:

  • The presumption of innocence
  • To be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures (an arrest is a seizure)
  • The right to counsel
  • Right to a speedy and public trial
  • Not to be deprived of life, liberty, property, without due process of law
  • Not subjected to cruel and unusual punishment

The Venezuelans, it appears, were denied every one of these rights enumerated above. I am curious then, why you think these rights do not apply to them?

The arrests and deportations of these Venezuelans is the exact opposite of how our judicial system is supposed to work. The law enforcement agency making the arrests – the ones you have ‘full faith in’ – are not the prosecutor or the judge or the jury.  Our system is designed to be adversarial, where the government must present evidence, to either a grand jury or magistrate before an arrest is made; or, after a warrantless arrest brought before a judge, and in the end convince a jury.

Even the basic right to challenge the government’s assertions of either criminality or being in the country illegally, was denied the Venezuelans, it appears.  From what I can gather, the government presented no evidence.  The court decides whether their detention is legal not ICE or you or Trump.  I can see the discussion now:  Judge, “What proof do you have that the defendant is a gang member?” Agent: “He has gang tattoos.”  Judge: “WTF! Get out of my Court.”  And it goes downhill from there.  

Tattoos? That would be like rounding up everyone who was near Capitol Hill on January 6 wearing a red MAGA hat and deporting them to Guantanamo without due process.  Don’t you think?

Spuriously invoking and using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, the government denied their rights, disappearing them:  No due process, no right to counsel, no hearing before a judge, sent to prison in El Salvador without trial for indefinite detention.  That should scare the crap out of everyone.  Then, to top off this charade of justice, DHS Secretary Noem shows up in El Salvador for a photo opportunity.  Thank God there were not gravel pits nearby.

I know I can be pedantic about American history, but did you know that the Alien Enemies Act can only be invoked after a declaration of war?  I really, really, really, hope you are aware that only Congress has the constitutional and legal prerogative to declare war.  The President’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was therefore illegal, extra-Constitutional.

You and I both swore an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. I did my best to uphold that oath and I expect you to faithfully execute that oath for the people of Virginia’s 5th Congressional District.  It’s your duty to challenge these trespasses and gross injustices by Trump, not excuse them.

Listen, I am not against deporting criminal aliens and believe in protecting our borders. One of the last cases I oversaw resulted in a child sex trafficker getting 25 years in federal prison. But let me ask you this, why protect our borders when a sitting president destroys the country from within by attacking the fundamental rights we agree are essential to this great country’s democracy? When police ‘gather lists’ at the direction of political leaders we are in dangerous territory. Whatever you think ails this country, strangling democracy to save it is not the right answer.

Thank you and I look forward to our continued dialog.