1/ I’m happy that @charlescwcooke read my article in @TheAtlantic on Senate reform, but his title shows that he didn’t read it very closely. Unlike Rep. Dingell and others, I don’t call for Senate abolition but only a comparatively modest reapportionment.
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
2/ First Cooke relies more on insults rather than arguments — and using ridicule shouldn’t persuade the fair-minded. I use the word “arguably” to set up an argument, that’s all. And Cooke does little to engage with the substance. Maybe that’s why he got his title wrong.
3/ I hate to break it to Cooke, but I think he realizes that the Constitution is indeed “malleable,” and that’s why it’s supported our system of government so well for so long. When things change, so must the Constitution. That’s why Supreme Court fights are so vigorous.
4/ As I note in the longer working paper (which Cooke may also wish to consult before firing off his quick-tempered arguments), the current Senate has been confirming Justices with majority votes that only represent a minority of the citizens of the country. That’s a problem.
5/ It’s a problem for both the legitimacy of the Senate and the legitimacy of the Court. Cooke also does not engage with the moral problem at issue: citizens in large states are radically underrepresented. It’s telling also that Cooke doesn’t even mention race. Why not?
6/ The voting rights amendments delegate broad power to Congress — specific powers — to correct the abridgment of voting rights “by the United States” based on race and color. Cooke doesn’t say anything about this. Maybe he’s comfortable in his white privilege? Hence his anger?
7/ There is really no doubt that the Senate is out of whack from the point of view of representation — and empirical evidence shows it privileges only one ethnic group: whites. Read the plain text of the 15th Amendment. Congress has a right — a duty — to protect voting rights.
8/ Cooke’s only real argument is one about “slippery slopes.” But see a classic argument on this topic by Schauer in 1985 in the Harvard Law Review for a refutation. There is no parade of horribles here. It’s a modest, fair, limited readjustment.
9/ The Rule of 100 keeps the Senate at about the same number. There’s no “abolition.” All states are still represented — and small ones are still overrepresented. The reform is narrowly tailored to provide greater voting equality, precisely what the amendments say should be done.
10/ Cooke says nothing about other advantages: an automatic correction for the Electoral College, adding DC and Puerto Rico as states (with only one senator each), nipping possible future separatism in California or Texas in the bud.
11/ Using insults such a “silliest argument,” “preposterous argument” or “a doozy” aren’t counter-arguments. They are emotional reactions. My proposal for reform leads not to “anarchy.” It would correct long-term injustice that US history suggests will prevail in the long run.
12/ We have enough invective coming from the White House these days, and it’s sad to see the example followed in some of Cooke’s rhetoric in his response to me. Clearly I’ve hit a nerve with him, but maybe he should stop to think about why before resorting to disparagement.
13/ Senate malapportionment is a serious moral and political issue, as well as a constitutional one. It deserves serious discussion and analysis — and not knee-jerk defenses of the status quo: especially when it’s a status quo that only privileges the already privileged.
