How Did Wesberry V. Sanders Change The Makeup Of The House

Facts of the Example:
James P. Wesberry, Jr. filed a adjust against the Governor of Georgia, Carl East. Sanders, protesting the state's apportionment scheme. The Fifth Congressional District, of which Wesberry was a member, had a population ii to three times larger than some of the other districts in the state. Wesberry claimed this system diluted his correct to vote compared to other Georgia residents.
Question:
Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Subpoena or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote?
Decision:
The Court held that Georgia'southward circulation scheme grossly discriminated against voters in the 5th Congressional Commune. Because a single congressman had to represent two to three times as many people every bit were represented by congressmen in other districts, the Georgia statute contracted the value of some votes and expanded the value of others. The Court recognized that "no right is more precious" than that of having a voice in elections and held that "[t]o say that a vote is worth more in 1 district than in another would non only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a Business firm of Representatives elected 'by the People. . .'"

Recent CITATIONS & MENTIONS
"[JUSTICE] Black's stance in Wesberry five. Sanders reestablished him equally a champion for individual worth, as he parsed the writings of James Madison on the Bill of Rights and proclaimed, "No right is more precious in a gratuitous state than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws...Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined."
The opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cites with approval Black'due south words from Wesberry v. Sanders, "While it may not be possible to draw congressional districts with mathematical precision, that is no excuse for ignoring our Constitutions apparently objective of making equal representation for equal numbers of people the fundamental goal...That is the high standard of justice and common sense which the Founders set for u.s.a.." --- The Observer, April 26, 2016
http://ndsmcobserver.com/2016/04/white-robes-black/

Wesberry 5. Sanders , 376 U.S. ane ( 1964 ) was a case involving congressional districts in the state of Georgia , brought before the Supreme Court of the Usa . The Court issued a ruling on February 17 , 1964 that districts accept to be approximately equal in population.

House districts and of rural overrepresentation in the chamber came to an end in the mid- to belatedly 1960s. These abrupt changes were the direct consequence of a historic decision by the Supreme Court in 1964. In Wesberry v. Sanders, the Court held that the population differences amongst Georgia's congressional districts were so great equally to violate the Constitution.

In reaching its landmark decision, the Supreme Courtroom noted that Article I, Department ii of the United States Constitution declares that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall exist "apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "equally nearly as practicable i homo's vote in a congressional ballot is to be worth as much every bit some other'south."

Wesberry and the Court's later "1 person, one vote" decisions had an boggling impact on the makeup of the House, on the content of public policy, and on electoral politics in general. The nation's cities and suburbs now speak with a much larger voice in Congress than ever before. However, it is quite possible to draw any district lines in accordance with the "one person, ane vote" rule and, at the same time, to gerrymander them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders

Wesberry v. Sanders, plaintiff & defendant in case

Senator Wesberry & Governor Sanders, still friends

Audio summary of Wesberry v Sanders

New Georgia Encyclopedia

Wesberryv . Sanders (1964)

In its 1964 ruling inWesberry v. Sanders —a adapt pursued by a group of Fulton County voters against Georgia officials, including Governor Carl Sanders —the U.S. Supreme Court built on its previous ruling in Gray 5. Sanders (1963) to hold that all federal congressional districts within each land had to exist made upwards of a roughly equal number of voters. In so ruling, the Court radically altered how state legislatures would thereafter describe congressional districts, which earlierWesberry often reflected long-established groupings of counties that ignored intervening urbanization and other major shifts in population.

Within 4 months ofWesberry , the Courtroom ruled in its most famous reapportionment case, Reynolds five. Sims (1964), out of Alabama, that the U.S. Constitution required the equal valuation of votes in well-nigh all elections for officials from legislatively drawn districts, including representatives who served in either chamber of any state legislature. Every bit a result, the Court scuttled the legislative electoral systems of nearly states, including often-used "piffling federalism" systems that structured districts for one business firm of the country legislature co-ordinate to geography, rather than population, in keeping with the model of the Constitution's handling of the U.S. Senate.

The reapportionment decisions of Chief Justice Earl Warren's court, offset with Greyness andWesberry , dramatically reshaped the nature of representative government in Georgia and in the nation. No less important, the principle of electoral equality that underlies these decisions has continued to generate important rulings in more than recent times—most prominently the Supreme Court's controversial decision inBush five. Gore, which brought an end to the high-profile legal challenges triggered past the presidential election of 2000.

As of Feb 2015 in that location were about 21,900 references to Wesberry five. Sanders on the Internet.

In 1964...the U.Due south. Supreme Court, in Wesberry v. Sanders, ruled that congressional districts must be as equal in population every bit possible. This decision was the beginning instance in which the Court had applied the principle of "i person, ane vote"on a nationwide basis. Making this ruling past a 6 to 3 vote, the Court overturned the 1962 ruling by the Atlanta federal court which had upheld Georgia'due south congressional redistricting law. The majority based its decision on the portion of the U.South. Constitution (Article 1, Section ii) which requires representatives to be apportioned amongst the states by population and chosen
by the people of those states. According to the majority, "We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit...vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more in 1 district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of government, it would cast aside the principle of a House 'elected past the people', a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention." In dissenting, Justice Harlan (who had also dissented in Baker v. Carr) stated that the U.S. Constitution did not mandate population to be the sole criterion of congressional districting, while Justice Stewart claimed that the Constitution did not require that districts be nearly as equal as possible in population. Several states undertook that year to make their congressional districts, if non equal in size, at least somewhat closer to equal than in previous years. Georgia legislators approved a new plan for the state'due south 10 congressional districts that gave increased representation to the Atlanta region and under which the greatest variation from the average district size of 394,312 was xvi per centum.2
----- Excerpted from "Drawing the Map: Redistricting in the South," Southern Legislative Conference of The Quango of State Governments, August, 2000.

Click here for WESBERRY v SANDERS ORAL Argument (audio)

How the Landmark Case

Wesberry v. Sanders (376US1)

Came Nigh

By James P. Wesberry, Jr.

Once I opened my own CPA practise in Atlanta I joined and became very agile in the Atlanta Junior Sleeping room of Commerce (Atlanta Jaycees). This before long led to service in the Georgia and the United States Jaycees. Eventually I became Country Governmental Diplomacy Chairman of the Georgia Jaycees and after that served for two years as National Governmental Affairs Chairman of the U.s.a. Jaycees. The Jaycees is an organization that believes in leadership development through community service. One of my major objectives was to encourage the young men in the Jaycees to take a real involvement in the workings of government.

The Jaycees had a number of programs already in identify and I added several more including a newsletter and an annual governmental diplomacy briefing both at the country and national levels. I was anxious to besides encourage immature man to seek and serve in public office and strive to make authorities improve.

1 solar day while attending a National Jaycee Board of Directors meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma I was talking with a member of the board from Buffalo New York who had been president of the Jaycee chapter in that location. He told me well-nigh an action that the Buffalo Jaycees had carried out in which their local chapter board of directors really went to courtroom every bit plaintiff seeking some sort of local government betterment and they won the example. This was quite a new idea to me which would never have occurred except through that detail conversation. I idea it was a great idea that could exist carried out by other Jaycee organizations. Over the next few weeks I began thinking about how the Jaycees could be used to strengthen government equally activists in litigation, simply of course this was a rather unusual and little travelled surface area. Information technology took a while to come with a possibility.

Around that time the United States Supreme Court decided the landmark case in state legislative circulation, Baker v. Carr . As soon equally I read about it low-cal bulb went off in my head undoubtedly triggered merely my years of service as a Folio in the US Business firm of Representatives. I immediately became convinced that if the Supreme Courtroom had decided to get into the controversy over legislative malapportionment, it would be absolutely leap to also consider the companion and even more important area of Congressional malapportionment.

At that fourth dimension the Atlanta metropolitan area consisting of 3 counties made up the 2nd largest Congressional Commune in the Usa comprised of over 800,000 citizens. The smallest Congressional District in Georgia included but about 270,000 citizens. Each elected ane congressman. The boilerplate district at that time was composed of nearly 400,000 citizens. Conspicuously Atlanta deserved two Congressional seats instead of 1.

This disproportion of representation was the most glaring in the US except for one other Congressional District located in Dallas, Texas. As a result the citizens of Atlanta were deprived of one of the two congressional representatives that they merited based upon the Constitution of the United States which provided that congressional districts should be apportioned based on the national census carried out every ten years. This constitutional requirement had been ignored by the Usa Supreme Court over many years. In all previous cases brought before the lower courts and appealed to the Supreme Court information technology had declined consideration based upon the criteria of separation of powers, not wishing to enter a controversy with the Congress that naturally preferred the status quo.

My plan was for the lath of directors of the Atlanta Junior Bedroom of Commerce to deed equally plaintiff in a course-activeness suit to be filed first before the District Court that would eventually reach the Supreme Court requesting that Atlanta be granted the 2 congressmen it deserved. In other words that the congressional districts of Georgia be fairly apportioned as the courtroom had ordered in the instance of legislative districts in Tennessee in the case of Baker Carr.

Because I had moved on to national Jaycee service, subsequently several years ' board membership I had dropped off the Lath of Directors of the Atlanta Jaycees. I needed a lawyer and a board member and then I talked to Frank Cash who was a immature personable lawyer too very agile in the Jaycees and a member of the board. Frank thought it was a good idea and advised me that we could bring a class action lawsuit with the Atlanta Jaycee board equally plaintiffs along with any other private members of the Atlanta Jaycees that likewise might want to be included every bit plaintiffs.

At this point I had never considered that my name would be involved with the case. Had our plan been carried out of the plaintiff would have been the Atlanta Jaycee Lath of Directors plus any individual members of the Atlanta Jaycees who also wanted to join in and be co-plaintiffs in the litigation. Information technology never occurred to me that whatever alternative might be forthcoming because I was sure the Atlanta Jaycee Board would be enthusiastic nearly this bang-up opportunity to serve the citizens of Atlanta. Meanwhile Frank had recruited another young lawyer with a bright law school record to work with him in developing the case. He was Emmett Bondurant now a very distinguished Atlanta lawyer, and he became the brains of the litigation squad while Frank was the activist counsel who made all the arrangements. From that signal on my role was limited to but beingness a bystander who had the idea of bringing the litigation. Once Emmett and Frank had prepared the bones case Frank took it before the Board of Directors of the Atlanta Jaycees to exist approved by it. Nosotros were and then sure of approval of such a keen opportunity to ameliorate the Congressional representation of our city that I did not even nourish the board meeting that evening.

Early the side by side morning Frank telephoned me in my office to requite me the astoundingly bad news that the board had rejected the idea of being plaintiffs in the lawsuit. This was totally unexpected past all of united states of america and we were simply dumbfounded or at least I was. I talked to Frank once again later that day afterwards thinking nearly our situation asked his opinion on how we might observe some culling course of action. I asked if he thought I could personally entreatment before the board to reconsider. He was certain that I could not change their minds equally the opposition was simply overwhelming. Nosotros had been and so naively confident of the attractiveness of our cause that we had done no preliminary individual discussions with lath members.

Frank said nosotros only had no possible chance of board blessing because several young lawyers with prominent law firms had ardently opposed getting the Jaycees in a law suit. My feeling was and all the same is that those blimp shirt lawyers were jealous that Frank was a immature unknown sole practitioner of the law, non an Atlanta blue blood like themselves. It was a lesson I will never forget. Frank said we could still go frontwards with an individual every bit plaintiff. But he said nosotros needed at to the lowest degree two for information technology to be a form action conform. He suggested that I exist the principal plaintiff and he came up with another person, Candler Crim, who had previously expressed great interest in the case.

I had not known Candler previously and I do non believe he was a member of the Jaycees. At any rate we were extremely anxious to motion forrad and the lawyers had everything ready to go and then Candler and I authorized them to bring the suit on our behalf. I was the principal plaintiff and Candler was the second. As a event my proper noun went down in history. Strangely enough the principal plaintiff'south proper name is published widely while the other plaintiffs end up existence anonymous to the public.

As expected we lost the case before the three-guess Commune Court, Tribunal. Every bit is the practice in constitutional litigation, we were able to immediately appeal it directly to the Usa Supreme Courtroom. But then two bug arose. It would price about $3,000 for the printing of the legal papers and other costs and neither Frank nor Emmett was qualified to do earlier the nation ' s Supreme Courtroom.

A lawyer must be 35 years of age to be eligible. In fact all four of us, the two plaintiffs and the ii lawyers were well nether 30 years of age. Frank solved both problems by talking to De Jongh Franklin, a past President of the Atlanta Jaycees and an chaser who was licensed to appear earlier the Supreme Court. De Jongh non only agreed to represent us before the court along with Frank and Emmett but found some wealthy civic spirited Atlantans who covered our costs. De Jongh, later an early supporter of Jimmy Carter for President, went to the White House with him as liaison with the business customs.

Actually Emmett Bondurant delivered the principal arguments earlier the Court and he deserves the most credit for our ultimate victory. Had information technology not been for the enthusiastic and indefatigable work of Frank Greenbacks we could have never have even gotten to the first stage of the litigation. And it was only with De Jongh Franklin ' s invaluable assist that we got to the Supreme Court. As is, I suppose, the instance in most historic cases, the plaintiffs played a very minor role.

I had been absolutely positive from the very showtime that we would prevail and when the case finally came before the United States Supreme Courtroom nosotros did. The rest is history. If you " Google " the case y'all will come up with over twenty,000 citations as it has been referenced in hundreds of subsequent cases at all levels, including cases in other countries.

The truth is we actually had our eyes stock-still upon getting two Congressional seats for Atlanta instead of ane and nosotros did not really retrieve a lot virtually the landmark ramifications of our instance until later information technology was decided and became the model for all subsequent similar cases every bit well as many others involving voter rights.

I was sorely disappointed that information technology became impossible to have the Atlanta Jaycee Board get the credit every bit plaintiff and thus set an case for others Jaycee chapters to follow. The second edition of the Jaycee-based book Young Men Tin can Change the World used the case as an instance. To some caste I was able through my ain after service every bit United states Junior Sleeping accommodation of Commerce National Treasurer and National Vice President while at the aforementioned fourth dimension serving as Georgia State Senator to encourage Jaycees to be activists in government.

Friday, Feb. 28, 1964

Redrawing the Lines

THE SUPREME Courtroom

Rarely has a Supreme Court determination caused such swift, tumultuous reaction. Late one night terminal week, the gavel pounded and pounded once again in the Georgia country firm of representatives. Dozens of lawmakers were shouting: "Mistuh Speakuh! Mistuh Speakuh!" The clock was fast approaching midnight on Feb. 21, the hour and solar day of statutory adjournment of the Georgia legislature. Just adjournment was out of the question. At pale was the necessity of readjusting Georgia's outrageously malapportioned U.Due south. congressional districts.

At present it was 11:50 p.m. — and the Speaker ordered that the clock exist stopped, a tried-and-true parliamentary move. Opponents of redistricting were in a frenzy. Macon'southward Representative Denmark Groover had a jerky idea: if at that place is no clock, it can't be stopped.

He raced up to the gallery, swung over the balcony, and belongings onto the parapet with an arm and a leg, reached over, pulled the official clock from its place on the wall and sent it crashing to the floor. There, others cracked and smashed it. Merely proponents were rushing the bill to completion, and by 12:xi a.m., information technology had passed. "Mistuh Speakuh!" cried Chattooga County'south James Floyd in desperation, "I think the tactics used here are unconstitutional, Communist, and everything else — and I don't like it worth a damn!" Just he was on the losing side.

Unfair on the Face. The wild Georgia scene was the direct effect of a milestone Supreme Court decision handed down simply 4 days before. The court was dealing with a Georgia instance, Wesberry v. Sanders. The plaintiffs were residents of Georgia's Fifth Commune — which includes Atlanta and, until the legislative action that came later in the week, had a population of 823,680.

That was more than 108% above the 394,312-person average of Georgia's ten districts. The plaintiffs' instance rested on the obviously and uncomplicated fact that their votes for Congressmen did not count on a par with those of Georgians in other districts.

Similar — or worse — disparities exist in congressional districts throughout the U.Southward. Republican John B. Bennett represents 177,431 people from the Upper Peninsula Twelfth District of Michigan, which he calls the nation'south "smallest" and, less accurately, "the nearly important." Republican Bruce Alger represents 951,527 people in and around Dallas; his Fifth Congressional District of Texas is the nation'south near populous. Yet both Bennett and Alger have one vote apiece in the Business firm of Representatives. Such variations mean that voters in overpopulated districts are underrepresented in the House, and vice versa. This, on the face of information technology, seems unfair.

The Principle. The Supreme Court's decision on the Georgia case not only agreed that it is unfair, but that it is unconstitutional as well. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the six-member majority, composed of Master Justice Warren, Justices Douglas, Brennan, Goldberg and White, said: "We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Commodity I, Department two, that Representatives be chosen 'past the people of the several states,' ways that as nearly equally is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth every bit much as another's." Black found that information technology was the intent of the Founding Fathers that all congressional districts within a land be more or less equal in population. "To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would non only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government; it would cast aside the principle of a Firm of Representatives elected 'by the people,' a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention."

In a blistering, 29-page dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan (with Justices Clark and Stewart writing divide dissents) argued that Black was dead wrong. "I had non expected to witness the day," he wrote, "when the Supreme Court of the United States would render a decision which casts grave incertitude on the constitutionality of the composition of the House of Representatives." He pointed out that Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution says: "The times, places and fashion of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each land by the legislature thereof; just the Congress may at any time past constabulary brand or change such regulations." Moreover, Article I, Section five says: "Each House shall exist the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." Harlan recalled that in 1872 Congress passed a constabulary requiring that Representatives be elected from districts of nearly equal populations. Only that constabulary was dropped, virtually unnoticed, in 1929 —and the man generally responsible for its disappearance was Democratic Representative Sam Rayburn, who came from one of the most sparsely populated congressional districts in the U.S., the Texas Fourth. Wrote Harlan: "It cannot be contended, therefore, that the court's decision today fills a gap left by the Congress. On the contrary, the court substitutes its own judgment for that of Congress." That much was certainly true. But obviously neither the Congress nor the many state legislatures had fulfilled their ramble duties, and their inaction led to the glaring inequities in representation that the court now is trying to correct.

The Furnishings. Despite the bitter differences between the majority and minority opinions, the decision curiously plenty acquired little firsthand reaction —at to the lowest degree as far every bit the legalities were concerned. What did arouse vast theorize beyond the U.S. was the possible political upshot.

It has go part of American political mythology that Republicans are strongest in rural, underpopulated areas, while Democrats concord sway in urban, overpopulated places. According to that notion, Democrats would stand up to gain by an equalizing of congressional districts. But several studies indicate that the opposite is probably true. In the 1962 elections, Republican candidates for the House won 48% of the national vote, but took only forty% of the seats. If they had gained equally high a percentage of the seats as they did of the vote, there would now be 209 Republican Congressmen instead of 176.

Furthermore, whatsoever redistricting along the lines indicated by the Supreme Court would nearly certainly give more than Representatives to Southern urban areas, where Republicans are strong, and take Representatives away from rural areas, where reactionary, racist Democrats oftentimes rule. Thus Bruce Alger's Dallas district might be divided into two or three, any or all of which could go Republican. Dallas is just one example of a heavily populated expanse where Republican strength is loftier. Nationwide, out of 66 Congressional districts with populations of more than than 500,000, the Republican party currently holds 34 seats.

Greater representation would go to suburbia, where Republicans dominate.

For example, Connecticut'south five congressional districts range in population from 318,942 to 689,555. Democrats control all but the Quaternary, Fairfield Canton. Fairfield would be strengthened for the Republicans if information technology were to lose some of the Democratic manufacturing towns along the district's northeast boundary. And the Second District, most vulnerable to realignment, has sent Republicans to Congress in six of the past ten elections, so in that location is a proficient chance that the G.O.P. would benefit from a change in that location.

Advantage Lost. Last calendar week's Supreme Court decision did not set forth a specific percentage figure for fair representation, but 15% in a higher place or below the state's district norm is by and large considered the benchmark figure. Birthday there are 33 states in which districts autumn outside that standard. Even earlier the court rendered its decision, suits similar to the i in Georgia were awaiting in Texas and Maryland. Close on the heels of the decision, Maryland's Governor J. Millard Tawes asked for a postponement of the country's May 19 house primaries in the hope that a special legislative committee would be able to redraw some notably inequitable district lines.

Georgia's Governor Carl Sanders, on the other hand, did not bother to expect, called on his legislature to act, almost within the hour—and the midnight riot ensued.

Before the clock was stopped, stomped on and smashed, Georgia's Fifth District, a three-canton area embracing Atlanta, was the 2d most populous in the nation. The Ninth, on the other extreme, comprised 272,154 people. State legislators from the rural districts naturally preferred to continue things that way since it gave their sparsely populated areas a tremendous voting advantage over Atlanta. As a upshot of the redistricting, the Atlanta area was divided into ii districts, each with its own Congressman. The remainder of the land map was redrawn and so as to provide districts of near-equal size. The result of Georgia's lightning reapportionment: the x districts now range in population from 329,738 to 455,575.

http://www.fourth dimension.com/time/magazine/commodity/0,9171,873809,00.html

Wesberry v. Sanders

Supreme Courtroom of the United states

Argued Nov 18, 1963
Decided Feb 17, 1964

Full case proper noun:	James P. Wesberry, Jr. et al. five. Carl Eastward. Sanders et al.

Citations:	376 U.S. 1 ; 84 S.Ct. 526; 11 L.Ed.2nd 481

Prior history:	206 F . Supp. 276 (Northward.D. Ga. 1962), prob. juris. noted, 374 U.Southward. 802 (1963).

Belongings

The Constitution requires that members of the Business firm of Representatives exist selected by districts composed, as nearly every bit is practicable, of equal population.

Courtroom membership

Chief Justice: Earl Warren
Associate Justices: Hugo Blackness , William O. Douglas , Tom C. Clark , John Marshall Harlan II , William J. Brennan , Potter Stewart , Byron White , Arthur Joseph Goldberg

Case opinions

Bulk past: Black
Joined by: Warren, Douglas, Brennan, White, Goldberg
Concurrence/dissent past: Clark
Dissent past: Harlan
Dissent by: Stewart

Laws applied

U.Due south. Const., art. I, � 2.

++++

A instance involving congressional districts in the land of Georgia , brought before the Supreme Court of the United States . The Court issued a ruling on February 17 , 1964 that districts take to be approximately equal in population. House districts and of rural overrepresentation in the sleeping accommodation came to an cease in the mid- to late 1960s. These precipitous changes were the directly result of a historic conclusion by the Supreme Court in 1964. In Wesberry v. Sanders , the Court held that the population differences among Georgia's congressional districts were so great equally to violate the Constitution.
In reaching its landmark decision, the Supreme Courtroom noted that Commodity I, Section 2 of the
United States Constitution declares that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall exist "apportioned among the several States...co-ordinate to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "as most as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to exist worth as much as another's." Wesberry and the Court'due south later "one person, i vote" decisions had an extraordinary impact on the makeup of the House, on the content of public policy, and on electoral politics in general. The nation's cities and suburbs at present speak with a much larger vocalization in Congress than ever before. All the same, it is quite possible to draw any district lines in accord with the "one person, one vote" rule and, at the same time, to gerrymander them.

Video: Gerrymandering Explained

Door console at US Supreme Court

View my Flipboard Magazine.

Whenever you find yous are on the side of the bulk, it is time to pause and reverberate

--- Marking Twain

We have never observed a great civilization with a population every bit old as the Usa volition accept in the twenty-first century; we have never observed a great culture that is as secular equally we are apparently going to go; and nosotros take had only half a century of feel with advanced welfare states...Charles Murray

This is a personal website containing personal information and some news and personal opinions on certain issues affecting democratic governance of interest to me and my friends, assembly and seminar participants. The financial data, charts, etc., consist of items I find interesting. Draw your ain conclusions from it.

Copyright Notice: In accord with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on this website is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only. Ref.: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html