Redistrict based on population, not politics

  Here’s a novel concept: When it comes time to redistrict political boundaries in Texas to accommodate the two new congressional seats awarded through the 2020 Census, remove all sociopolitical filters and base it by population alone.

As naïve a concept as that may seem, it’s the simplest and most logical method for determining fair congressional and legislative representation. Strip away the filters of political party, race, gender, religion, wealth and every other dividing factor. Let one person be one person. Make an effort to keep communities together whenever possible.

End gerrymandering. End the nonsense of creating districts that benefit one party over another. It only takes one look at the current congressional map of the state to see that common sense has not prevailed. If you look to the south at the long, narrow and crooked 28th, 15th, 34th, and 27th districts, for example, it becomes abundantly clear that factors beyond population were considered in their creation. The same can be said for all 36 districts.

Before lawmakers begin the decennial process of reshaping the districts for representation in Congress, the state Legislature, and the state Board of Education, they need to check their egos, political parties, and all other outside influences at the door. They need to forget all of that stuff and remember the fact that Texas recently spent a lot of time and money in the courts, ultimately to have judges and not lawmakers have the final say in what our congressional districts look like.

So why is this important now? Legislators are currently on the tail end of the current biennial session and their attention is focused on the budget and numerous other hot-button issues that need to be considered by May 31. Normally redistricting would be considered during the session, but pandemic delays of Census data means it will be August before state leaders have the data to start drawing lines on a map. You can bet, however, that legislators and other state officials have redistricting on their minds and that all kinds of backroom wheeling and dealing has begun in Austin.

We need to let the Legislative Redistricting Board (a five‐member body of state officials including the lieutenant governor, speaker of the house, attorney general, comptroller, and commissioner of the general land office) know that we don’t want political party districts but districts that represent the people. Let’s take the power from the parties and return it to the people.

Communities deserve to be represented by one of their own, not someone 300 miles away along a flagpole line on a map. As we have seen in the past with our state leadership, they cannot be trusted to take anything into consideration but preservation and expansion of their party’s power.

That has caused the federal government to step in on more than one occasion. It’s time to act reasonably and responsibly and to not worry about balancing political scales but rather the scales of honest representation.

Right now in Gillespie County the Republican majority might be pleased to have Republicans increase their political stronghold on the state. But there will come a time down the road when Democrats gain control. Do we really want them carving up our districts to their favor? If not, then Republicans shouldn’t be doing it to them. It’s time to do the most fair and equitable thing and that is to create districts that represent communities, not political parties. – J.S.

 (This was an editorial in the Fredericksburg Standard-Radio Post.)

Constitutional carry bill a bad idea

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Of all the amendments to the U.S. Constitution, perhaps none is more controversial than the Second Amendment – part of the Bill of Rights – that gives Americans the right to bear arms. As one of the most widely interpreted and legally challenged of the amendments it remains under attack by Democrats in the White House and Congress who eagerly chip away at it with ever increasing gun control laws.

Every time there is a mass shooting the cry goes out for more gun control legislation. Republicans in the Texas Legislature, however, want to push the pendulum the other way by making it easier to carry firearms. The so-called Constitutional Carry bill that passed the house but is bogged down in the senate would do away with license to carry permits in the state. We think this is a really bad idea.

Before you go accusing us of being a bunch of liberal, anti-gun nut jobs, hear us out. We’re not opposed to the Second Amendment and the right of the people to have guns. We’re opposed to the irresponsibility and the senseless mayhem that tends to go with it. No one wants to see another mass shooting or a killing of any kind. For those bent on murder, a gun is a means to an end. The real focus should be on preventing the root causes of the action, not the tool used to carry it out.

Although a case can be made that any and all gun control laws are an infringement of the Second Amendment, the courts and experience have proven the legality and the effectiveness of the laws already on the books. The laws aren’t perfect, and never will be, but they’re a far cry from the lawless days of the Wild West or the violence of Prohibition Era gangsters.

Having license to carry permits provides a degree of security and safety. Anyone obtaining a permit will have gone through background checks, eliminating those who should not be in possession of a firearm, including felons and some of those who are mentally ill. It also means the bearer if the permit has been trained in proper gun safety and handling and has been instructed on state and federal gun laws.

Guns and social conditions today are a far cry from what they were when our forefathers penned the Bill of Rights. Back then, the only firearms that existed were flintlocks. There were concerns about the government (more specifically the British) taking guns away from citizens. There was also a need for the Colonial government to have an armed citizenry to form militias for state and national defense.

Today we have six branches of the military and there are thousands of types of firearms, all of which fire faster and with more accuracy than flintlock rifles and pistols. Cleary this is something the founding fathers could not foresee, thus the need for regulation.

As much as we do not want to see guns in the hands of untrained and irresponsible individuals, we also don’t want to see any more “tightening of the loopholes” and other threats of gun control every time there is a tragedy involving firearms.

The threat of banning guns is as dangerous as giving them free rein. Answering extremism with extremism is the wrong approach. Rather than having this political polarization on the subject of gun control, why can’t we see more of a cooperative, centrist approach? Safety first should always be the mantra when it comes to guns. That is why the license to carry permits are so important and effective. The big thing that can help pull both sides of the issue together, however, is a focus on fixing the issues that lead to gun violence.

Improving the quality of mental and emotional health in this country is a first, obvious step. The next is the toning down of political rhetoric. We’ve passed the tipping point in this country to where politics have evolved beyond supporting a cause to opposing the other party. This inflames passion and emotion which can lead to more hatred and violence.

We realize that there will never be a way to satisfy everyone on the issue of gun control and it will never go away, but the first step involves listening and having open communication along with respect and responsibility. It’s at least worth a shot. – JS

(NOTE: This is an unpublished editorial.)

For greater good, will you or won’t you?

To get or not to get, that is the question.

We’ve reached a tipping point in COVID-19 vaccinations and frankly it isn’t looking very good. Too many people are opting not to get vaccinated, which is their right. Along with that, however, comes the potential consequences. Some will argue that there are potential consequences of taking the vaccine, but that remains to be seen. Last week, three of us in the newsroom received our second dose and another recently received the first. The rest are already fully vaccinated.

Initially I was skeptical of the vaccine. I was determined I wasn’t going to take it until this summer at the earliest so I could see how others reacted to it first. Then I started to see how many of my friends on social media excitedly posted photos and information about getting their first and then second shots and with that my opinion softened. Then my parents, in-laws, and two of my children got vaccinated. At that point, I felt that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

To be sure, there has been plenty of joking around about growing a third eye, extra limbs, a tail, green skin, webbed fingers and toes, and having been microchipped with a secret government tracker. Come on, if the government wants to track me, all they need to do is tag my hairy green tail. I’m not worried, I have enough extra eyes to see them coming a mile away. And now in my defense, I can throw more punches than any two-armed secret government agent any day!

All joking aside, I’ve come to the conclusion that getting the vaccine — even if it’s experimental — is better than taking a risk getting COVD-19. Yes, I know all the anti-vax/ anti-mask rhetoric about the 98% survival rate and how most people who get it have few if any symptoms. But I also know there are 49,000 people in Texas — and 50 here in Gillespie County — who had hopes, plans, dreams and expectations that are now unfulfilled after they succumbed to COVID-19.

At this moment, I have a friend who has been hospitalized out of state and away from his family for more than a month with the virus. He has been in and out of a drug-induced coma, on and off a ventilator, and at last report had a tracheotomy for a breathing tube and had a feeding tube installed. He’s fighting for his life daily and it’s rough on him and his family.

All I have to do is think of these people to realize that getting vaccinated is a small sacrifice and smaller risk to do my part to help move us beyond this COVID mess.

Am I taking a risk by getting the vaccine? Yes, but I take bigger risks getting behind the wheel of a car each day. In my opinion, not getting the vaccine is riskier.

I know there is a lot of talk about herd immunity, but we’ll never get there as long as there are so many holdouts from the vaccines. In Gillespie County, just over a third of the population has started the vaccination process. The response has been so low lately that the vaccination site is reducing hours and is planning to stop administering the first shot on May 6 and the second on June 3.

That will leave a sizeable portion of our population unvaccinated and vulnerable. The only logical conclusion is that the number of COVID-19 cases in our area will start to rise again, especially as people ditch their masks and seek a return to normalcy by ignoring all the safety protocols that we’ve been using the last year.

We all want to return to the way things were before the pandemic. Nobody wants to wear a face covering. Most everyone wants to meet in groups, attend large events, shake hands and hug. After a year apart, we’ve been afforded the opportunity to do that, yet two-thirds of the local population is refusing to do anything about it.

I fully understand and appreciate the perspective of not trusting the vaccines because they’ve been rushed and not fully tested. I understand that by taking the vaccine that I am part of the trials. I also appreciate the perspective that the government has no business telling me as a private citizen that I have to wear a mask or what I can and cannot do. I get that.

I just prefer to be a part of the solution by following the best advice available from the most knowledgeable sources. I’d rather err on the side of trying to help others than to stubbornly be part of the problem.

The question remains, am I just another lemming heading over the vaccination cliff or am I part of the solution to this pandemic nightmare?

The bigger question is which will you choose to be? The government cannot and will not make anyone take the vaccine. That remains an individual choice, as it should be.

So we’re back to this: To get or not to get, that is the question. I made my choice. What will you do?

 

joe@fredericksburgstandard.com