Federal Intervention in State Matters

Federal Intervention in State Matters

Name

Institution Affiliation

Federal Intervention in State Matters

Elections

Those of the conventional perspective are of the idea that the federal government plays a small role in elections and campaigns. Although states have authority in numerous aspects of campaign and elections in comparison, a more focused look shows that the federal government has steadily increased its influence in campaigns and elections for the past half-century. Combined, lots of Congressional committees and federal agencies could take part in federal elections under the current law (Weinstein-Tull, 2015).

Congress today is but a multifaceted combination of traditional oversight obligations and new ones when it comes to election fields. When reports came out suggesting foreign interference during the 2016 elections cycle, with apprehension over the issue reoccurring in the future, the profile of activities surrounding the elections in Congress has significantly been raised. The attempt by Russia to infiltrate the US elections is construed by state and local election officials to provide an excuse for the Federal government to take unlimited control over the electoral process. The federal government has included the elections as part of its national critical infrastructure and claims that special attention is warranted.

Although the FBI which is leading this process has a legitimate claim the federal government has increased control over elections and if this new infrastructure is implemented the federal government will go to the extent of taking over obligations of the states such as the location of polling sites. By doing so, the federal government would jeopardize what has been the nation’s best security. The electoral system has been highly decentralized which means manipulating the voting process on a large scale is not possible using cyber-attacks because a national system for which to attack does not exist.

What might be giving this claim by federal agencies power, is the activities of states online. Having individual systems makes it impossible for hackers to manipulate votes. However, states are progressively posting election data online. This information includes lists of voters and preliminary vote counts, which makes it increases the susceptibility of the elections at the very least being disrupted. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should, however, help with the security of elections and not to dictate how states run them. Working with critical infrastructure should not be through regulation but rather voluntary partnerships. These partnerships include information sharing, taking community opinion, determining what they want, and collaborating with them to provide the information.

The Department of Homeland Security providing technical services has nothing to do with taking over state control over major aspects of the election like deciding the location of the polling sites. Furthermore, state election officials have been following the procedures that the DHS is proposing for years such as testing voting systems and only additional help is necessary. Although state electoral bodies also want additional funds with the new infrastructure, it is clear that the designation of critical infrastructure does not accompany additional funds.

Redistricting

America bases its democracy on fair representation and the central idea that the government has the obligation of accountability to the people. The interest of the people are carried by Congress and state legislatures, the voters select members of these bodies in a system that is transparent and competitive. In short, the system allows the people to express their policy and political preferences. Redistricting is one issue that ensures that voters are able to enjoy their rights. It is the process by which boundaries to congressional and state legislature are drawn. All representatives in the United States are as well state legislators come from political areas divided to form districts. These boundaries are drawn every ten years after the national census. The federal government mandates that districts should have equal populations and must not divide on the basis of race.

However, redistricting has been facing a huge problem in the name of gerrymandering. When state legislators have the power to conduct legislative redistricting, they can use this process to alter district lines in a bid to raise their election prospects and influence outcomes (Manheim, 2013). This is contrary to the purpose of the state legislature where redistricting commissions are expected to draw district lines in the effort to make them easier to understand and ensure that every citizen receives fair treatment in all aspects of exercising their democracy and ensuring consistency. The federal constitution requires states to comply with certain guidelines associated with population and anti-discrimination. For congressional redistricting, states should ensure that the population in these districts is as equal as possible. Legislative districts for state legislators should be considerably equal (Webster, 2013). In addition to these rules, states are allowed to define their own redistricting criteria.

The intervention of the federal government on the issue of redistricting has not been there enough to avoid the malpractices that alter the decisions of the people. These malpractices go by the name gerrymandering and as mentioned, is the practice of drawing district boundaries to generate partisan advantages (Stephanopoulos & McGhee, 2015). The advancement in technology in particular in the past decade has turned the art of altering district boundaries into some form of science. This has then enabled some parties to deny others a guaranteed win during elections.

Because of the autonomy given to states on the issue of redistricting, the lack of intervention by the federal government has been nothing but adequate. For instance, is a state or city population creates this trend of voting for one party, it is only obvious the majority of other elected officials in that area belong to the same party. However, gerrymandering can allow districts to be drawn in a manner that gives the minority party more seats.

It does not make any sense that district boundaries do not follow some geographical lines such as county borders or a river. Gerrymandering does the opposite and creates boundaries with people that are more likely to vote for one party. The district boundaries cut across established geographical borders and form inexplicable shapes whose only purpose is to raise partisan advantage. It does not make sense to allow people with direct interests to deal with the issue of redirecting; it would be wise if the federal government exerted a little more control on this issue

Education

Considering that, most policies on education entail which part of education governance the federal government should stay away from. The brooking institution initiated a public conversation on what areas and activities where the federal government should intervene. Changes in the administration including the appointment of Betsy DeVos to head the education department as secretary will mean alterations in the offing under this new leadership, which is contrary to government administration as it lied towards free market forces, which, in this case, cover for-profit charter institutions and vouchers (Hansen, 2017).

A lot has been documented saying that the federal government should stay away from education and its governance. Federal policy has evolved since after the revolutionary war starting with the Tenth Amendment in 1791 that gave states powers that were not reserved for the federal government, which among many others was education. Then came the civil rights movement which was a significant force in the period when the involvement of the federal government was intensified with landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

The federal government should assume a supporting role when it comes to the topic of education (Baron, 2016). These roles include ensuring that no child is denied the basic right to education or discriminated on the basis of health, disability, gender, race, ethnicity or any other panned status. The federal governments should also be expected to fund the education department to facilitate access for students that are highly in need including but not limited to those from very poor backgrounds and with disabilities. It should also support research and development, the collection and distribution of information on the quality and scope of the country’s education system (Harris, 2016). This information is necessary for informing policy and practice at local as well as state levels. Aligning itself with its limited capacity and exclusive advantages, the federal government should support the development and environments that ensure continuous improvements of local and state education systems.

In summary, the federal government’s role is ensuring that the right to free and high-quality education for all K-12 students is not infringed and their civil rights are upheld by ensuring the resources for those in dire need are available as informed by public data and high-quality research. The federal government supporting and not supervisory role entails the provision of infrastructure for states, districts and schools to aide them in the continuous improvement of their efforts.

References

Baron, K. (2016, December 16). Finding a Balance for the Federal Role in Education Policy. Retrieved from https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/blog/finding-a-balance-for-the-federal-role-in-education-policy/

Hansen, M. (2017, January 13). Education insiders reflect on policy implications of Trump Administration. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/01/13/federal-education-policy-under-the-trump-administration/

Harris, D. N. (2016, December 21). Memo: Improving the federal role in education research. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/12/23/memo-improving-the-federal-role-in-education-research/Manheim, L. M. (2013). Redistricting litigation and the Delegation of Democratic Design. BUL Rev., 93, 563.

Stephanopoulos, N. O., & McGhee, E. M. (2015). Partisan gerrymandering and the efficiency gap. U. chi. l. Rev., 82, 831.

Webster, G. R. (2013). Reflections on current criteria to evaluate redistricting plans. Political Geography, 32, 3-14.

Weinstein-Tull, J. (2015). Election Law Federalism. Mich. L. Rev., 114, 747.