Women and Politics

I think it’s safe to say that things have changed since 1787. Our country is much more diverse and our priorities are a lot different.

Sure, 223 years ago, a big concern was how each state would be represented in the national legislature. The Great/Connecticut Compromise decided that each state would get two Senators, and the House members would be determined by each states’ population.

But, as Annie Lowrey points out in the Washington Post, this seems to make less sense today:

“Half of the population of the nation lives in 10 states, which have 20 senators. The other half lives in 40 states that have 80 senators,” says the official Senate historian, Donald Ritchie. Small states and states whose representatives might tip the balance on a key vote make out like bandits, as their senators demand outsize appropriations in return for their support.”

Lowrey notes, “The Great Compromise was intended to make sure the big states didn’t trample the little guys.”

But who are the “little guys” today? I would argue they’re not states, but the under-and non-represented portions of our population: Women, low-income families, minorities, the young, the old, the middle-aged, etc.

Lowrey poses a radical question: What if senators represented people by income or race, not by state?

Get outta town. Our representative democracy actually representing our population accurately? Would that really be so crazy?

I’m sure many would think so…probably the demographic of folks who have been in power since 1787 and couldn’t possibly conceive of changing the system to be fair.

Which makes me really sad, because the Senate that Lowrey describes sounds so wonderful:

“Imagine a chamber in which senators were elected by different income brackets — with two senators representing the poorest 2 percent of the electorate, two senators representing the richest 2 percent and so on.

Or how about if senators represented particular demographic groups, based on gender and race? Black women, Hispanic women and Hispanic men would have six each; black men five; and Asian women and men two each.”

And the part that especially made my pro-choice feminist self jump for joy?

“Women voters would control a steady and permanent majority — making, say, discriminatory health-care measures such as the Stupak Amendment and the horrible dearth of child-care options for working mothers seem untenable.”

Sigh. It would be so beautiful. But while it makes perfect sense to me, I know others would dismiss, laugh at, and otherwise criticize the idea to no end.

What do you think? Should our government reflect the makeup of our population?

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

The first two months of 2010 has not been a smooth ride for Democrats. Martha Coakley’s defeat in Massachusetts’ special election last month left them without the crucial 60th majority vote, which opens the door for Republican filibusters. And now another one of President Obama’s judicial nominees is facing possibly the longest delay in her confirmation.

Marisa Demeo, an openly gay Latina woman, was nominated last March to serve on the D.C. Superior Court. While judges on this Court must be confirmed by the Senate before serving, most judges are confirmed without trouble and hassle.

What’s the problem, then? Demeo’s strong record of legal advocacy on Hispanic and LGBT issues is causing conservatives to block her confirmation. Demeo has previously worked as assistant U.S. Attorney in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Department as well as a former lobbyist for Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). Horrors.

Her confirmation is being blocked and continually delayed thanks to socially conservative Senators, in particular, Sen, Jim DeMint (R-SC), who also opposed Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination last summer. His claim? Demeo’s “leftist activism” raised concerns about her ability to be objective as a judge.

Sen. DeMint, I urge you to try and get your thoughts straight before you contradict yourself. In a 2005 statement, DeMint said:

“One of my goals as a Senator is to confirm highly qualified judges by ensuring timely up-or-down votes for all nominees no matter who is President, no matter which party is in the majority. Senators were elected to advise and consent, not to grand stand or obstruct”.

Interesting that you were this “neutral” about judicial nominees during the Bush administration and now all of a sudden you’re shamelessly blocking the confirmation of a well-qualified Judge. Oh wait…liberal, Hispanic, and openly gay Judge. So wouldn’t this mean Sen. DeMint is grand standing or obstructing a qualified judge? Oh the hypocrisy.

The prolonged delay of Demeo is unnecessary and un-called for. Demeo’s strong record and accomplishments make her an excellent addition to the bench of the D.C. Superior Court. This kind of anti-woman, anti-progressive action must not be tolerated—especially with President Obama in the White House. When will we stop kowtowing to socially conservative Congress members who want to roll back the clock on the rights of Americans?

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

Just over a year after being nominated to head the Office of the Legal Counsel in the US Department of Justice—a position in which provides powerful legal advice to the President—Dawn Johnsen is once again seeing a continuation in the trend of delays which are preventing her confirmation.

A vote in the Senate did not occur last year due to “unprecedented delays”, as said by Senator Patrick Leahy. President Obama re-nominated Johnsen to the post early this year; however, the vote that was previously scheduled for Thursday January 28th was delayed because the Senate “ran out of time”. During a time in which women’s reproductive freedoms stand in the hands of our elected officials, we need Dawn Johnsen’s confirmation.

After obtaining her JD from Yale Law School, Johnsen worked for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as a staff counsel fellow for one year before joining NARAL Pro-Choice America in 1988. In 1993, Johnsen worked in the Office of Legal Counsel under the Clinton administration as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and later on as Acting Assistant Attorney General until 1998. Johnsen left the government in 1998 and joined the staff at the University Of Indiana Maurer School of Law, where she currently teaches.

Johnsen has been a target for Republicans because of her stance on women’s reproductive freedoms as well as her past criticisms on the Bush Administration. Anti-choice elected officials have been highly critical of Johnsen’s so-called radical views on abortion. During her confirmation hearings last year, Johnsen was criticized for her involvement in the 1989 Freedom of Choice Act, the case of United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization in 1988, as well as her stance on abortion in general.

Didn’t the church and state separate during the Reformation? And in the year 2010, to have a legal expert who has a strong record of standing up for women’s reproductive rights without wavering? How radical.

In December the Senate narrowly defeated the Nelson-Hatch amendment with 54 votes. Just last weekend Focus on Family, an anti-choice organization was able to sponsor and air 4 ads during the Super Bowl. With the recent defeat of Martha Coakley and the confirmation of Scott Brown to the Massachusetts Senate, it seems women’s reproductive rights are truly under attack. Further threats on Johnsen’s confirmation are possible due to the Democrats losing their crucial 60th vote last month.

The Senate must not delay Johnsen’s confirmation any longer. Women make up only 17% of U.S. Congress. A one-year delay is one year too long for this important confirmation.

It’s true. Sad, but true. The United States, a country that boasts its dedication to equality, still gives almost no voice to over 50% of its population. Well, you might say, women got off to a slow start in U.S. government, but we’ve made progress.

Sure. The U.S. elected the first woman to Congress in 1916, Jeannette Rankin. But it wasn’t until 1941 that women broke double digits for their combined seats in the House and Senate.

The year of the woman, 1992, brought us up to a whopping 12.4% of Congress. And here we are today—women holding only 17% of Congress. Clearly, whatever progress we were making has severely stagnated.

Almost a century after electing the first woman, our federal legislature—arguably the most powerful governing body in the world—doesn’t even come close to accurately representing its country. Not by gender, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, age, or ethnicity.

For being a long-standing world leader—historically ahead of the curve, innovative, powerful—the United States has certainly fallen way behind on the road to gender equality in its government. As we’re ranked 84th in the world for the number of women in our national legislature, I would say we’ve fallen off the equality cart and can barely even see the dust that we’re being left in.

As White House Correspondent Anne E. Kornblut and author of “Notes from the Cracked Ceiling” points out in the Huffington Post, the U.S. currently falls behind Pakistan and Cuba, with many other countries already appointing female leaders.

“At one time, Margaret Thatcher seemed to be the rare example of a female head of state, the isolated exception to the worldwide rule of male-dominated law. Now there are numerous women running countries—from Angela Merkel (Germany) to Michelle Bachelet (Chile) to Cristina Kirchner (Argentina) to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (Liberia) to Luisa Dias Diogo (Mozambique) along with a handful of others.”

Kornblut discusses examples of female leaders across the globe, showing how even the men in some societies are promoting the unique qualities of women. In Liberia, after enduring a terrible civil war, people are saying things like, “Men are too violent, too prone to make war,” or “Men have failed us.”

In Iceland, the former male leaders are being blamed for their economic meltdown and are “now looking for a female solution to clean up the mess.”

Several international studies have found women to be more trustworthy and less likely to be corrupt:

“A 1999 study published by the World Bank claimed that women were more trustworthy and public-spirited than men and concluded that greater representation of women in Parliament in a sample of 150 countries in Europe, Africa and Asia led to lower levels of corruption.”

Many countries have turned to women to clean up the mess left after severe national conflict—especially in Africa, from countries like Rwanda to Sierra Leon.

Hmm. So with the United States currently at war(s), suffering from a severe economic recession, with a giant federal deficit, and its citizens becoming more divided by the day, I have to ask: When will we start turning to women for help?

When will we realize that our security, stability, and progress are being inhibited by the lack of diversity in our public leadership? How much worse does it have to get before we have our national awakening? Will we ever get there?

Well, we’re starting to get there…slowly. But even despite our own reports saying that women lawmakers are more effective than their male counterparts, women who dare tout that fact are still criticized. (Cough, Sonia Sotomayor, cough.)

I fear to imagine what terrible circumstances might have to arise before our country finally works to put more women in power…but I certainly hope we won’t have to find out.