Regarding the Oct. 19 editorial “Maryland voters have a chance to reject extreme gerrymandering”:
In addition to candidates, the Maryland ballot contains three ballot questions amending the state’s constitution. The first two are minor, but the third poses an important change. And across Maryland, yard signs are popping up opposing it.
The wording that appears on the ballot is boring, and voters might easily check the “yes” box without studying the issue. The significant thing is this: The constitutional amendment would establish that “nothing in the Maryland Constitution provides applicable criteria for the boundaries of a congressional districting plan.”
Can anyone understand that sentence? Only if you are aware of a 2022 court decision saying that congressional district boundaries must be compact and contiguous — that is, connected — just like the state legislature’s district boundaries. The ballot measure wants to reverse that.
The goal is to allow absolutely ridiculous shapes for Maryland’s eight congressional districts. Pieces of districts would not even have to be connected. Gerrymandering is bad enough already, and this ballot question wants to make it worse. A “no” vote is the only rational response.
Thomas P. Sheahen, Deer Park, Maryland
Approval of this referendum would allow Maryland to further gerrymander its congressional districts to ensure that all members of its congressional delegation are Democrats. This provision would be only a short-term response in the gerrymandering war started by President Donald Trump and Texas Republicans. Failure to respond to the Texas initiative could result in a diminished opportunity for Democrats to control the House of Representatives and a continuation of government via executive fiat.
The best solution is for Democratically controlled state governments to pass legislation permitting congressional redistricting only immediately after a decennial census and mandating that such redistricting be performed by nonpartisan commissions on the basis of geography, without any consideration of race, ethnicity, religion or socioeconomic status. This legislation would become effective only if one or more Republican-controlled states of similar size did the same. For example, if California passed this type of law, Texas and another smaller Republican state — adding up to an equal number of representatives as California — might be encouraged to use compact, fairly drawn districts instead of gaming the system.
Bruce N. Shulman, Silver Spring
Broken globe
Regarding the Oct. 22 news article “Hegseth wanted Eisenhower’s globe for his office. His staff damaged it”:
Seeing the pictures of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s globe — broken by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s staff in their haste to move it to his office, without waiting for specialists to pack it properly — one can only ask: Is this metaphor, reality or both? Combine haste, poor judgment and an ethos of breaking norms with a drive to shatter a rule-based global order: The photos The Post published capture it all.
Nancy Krieger, Boston
Understanding Elizabeth Holmes
I enjoyed Monica Hesse’s Oct. 19 Style article, “‘Everything’ is something else.” To understand the figure at the heart of this film, it is worth examining the term “accredited investor,” a Securities and Exchange Commission designation for certain high-net-worth and sophisticated purchasers, such as banks and corporations.
The SEC thinks about early nonpublic companies — such as Theranos — and accredited investors similarly: They are sharks, and they can choose to take on the risk of investing. Nonaccredited investors are puppies, and the SEC limits the ways in which sharks can raise money from puppies.
We know what happened when Elizabeth Holmes was in the same room with accredited investors, as reported in the Wall Street Journal in 2015. An accredited investor who asked Holmes for specifics about her company said: “The more we tried to drill down, the more uncomfortable she got.” That seems like the reaction of a shark being confronted by another shark.
Stuart Gallant, Belmont, Massachusetts
Monica Hesse comes to a conclusion about the documentary “You Can See Everything” that echoes much of the critical response to date. She posits that Elizabeth Holmes is either totally innocent or she is a sociopath, diabolically skilled at lying and manipulation. However, between those two explanations, I prefer neither. What I saw on screen was a deeply damaged person locked in an emotional state more appropriate for a 9-year-old. Holmes appeared to cast every man as entirely trustworthy. And between Sunny Balwani at Theranos; Billy Evans as her new partner; and now Nathan Fielder as chronicler, Holmes repeatedly makes disastrous choices. If more viewers had leaned more toward understanding rather than judging Holmes, perhaps the film would have been less of a chuckle.
Stephen Hunter, Washington
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
The post There has to be a better way to fight gerrymandering appeared first on Washington Post.
