DOCSLIB.ORG

The Erosion of Democracy: Gerrymandering in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Erosion of Democracy: Gerrymandering in the United States University of Northern Iowa UNI ScholarWorks Dissertations and Theses @ UNI Student Work 2019 The erosion of democracy: Gerrymandering in the United States Matthew P. Ruiz University of Northern Iowa Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©2019 Matthew P. Ruiz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/etd Part of the American Politics Commons, and the Human Geography Commons Recommended Citation Ruiz, Matthew P., "The erosion of democracy: Gerrymandering in the United States" (2019). Dissertations and Theses @ UNI. 954. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/etd/954 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Work at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses @ UNI by an authorized administrator of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright by MATTHEW P. RUIZ 2019 All Rights Reserved THE EROSION OF DEMOCRACY: GERRYMANDERING IN THE UNITED STATES An Abstract of a Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Matthew P. Ruiz University of Northern Iowa May 2019 ABSTRACT Every ten years in the United States, we redraw our congressional districts that elect the 435 members of the House of Representatives after the decennial census data has been collected and organized. Politicians around the country have taken to using these map revisions for their party’s own political gains and have been doing so since the time even before the United States Constitution was ratified. This process where politicians draw district lines to favor their own party and expand their political power is called gerrymandering (Trickey, 2017). The purpose of this mixed method study is to understand the impact gerrymandering has on democracy in the United States, examining six states specifically at the federal level. The six states examined for this study are Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Iowa, Arizona, and Washington State. A qualitative analysis of the literature triangulated with a GIS spatial analysis of the six states answers whether or not specific locations in the US can be characterized as less democratic based on their political geography, as well as a discussion of how maps that are not gerrymandered could be drawn. THE EROSION OF DEMOCRACY: GERRYMANDERING IN THE UNITED STATES A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Matthew P. Ruiz University of Northern Iowa May 2019 ii This Study by: Matthew Ruiz Entitled: The Erosion of Democracy: Gerrymandering in the United States Has been approved as meeting the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts ___________ ______________________________________________________ Date Dr. Lisa Millsaps, Chair, Thesis Committee ___________ ______________________________________________________ Date Dr. Alex Oberle, Thesis Committee Member ___________ ______________________________________________________ Date Dr. Kay Weller, Thesis Committee Member ___________ ______________________________________________________ Date Dr. Jennifer Waldron, Dean, Graduate College iii DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this work to the individual I’m hoping to inspire, my son, Maddux P. Ruiz. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to first thank the University of Northern Iowa geography department for allowing me this opportunity. It wouldn’t have been without the department’s faith in me that I would have been able to be part of the program and complete this work ultimately. I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Lisa Millsaps, for all of the time she has sacrificed in order to read draft after draft of this work as well as being constantly interrupted from her own work so that we could sit in her office and split hairs. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 Research Problem ............................................................................................................ 4 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 4 Research Objectives ........................................................................................................ 5 Study Area ....................................................................................................................... 5 Definitions ....................................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 9 Gerrymandering: History and Salience ......................................................................... 10 Effects of Gerrymandering ............................................................................................ 14 Methods of Understanding and Analyzing Gerrymandering ........................................ 15 Previous Gerrymandering Research .............................................................................. 17 Case Studies: Gerrymandered States ............................................................................. 18 North Carolina ........................................................................................................... 18 Pennsylvania .............................................................................................................. 21 Wisconsin .................................................................................................................. 23 Case Studies: States That Seek To Avoid Gerrymandering .......................................... 26 Arizona ...................................................................................................................... 26 Iowa ........................................................................................................................... 28 Washington ................................................................................................................ 32 CHAPTER 3 METHODS ................................................................................................. 35 Discussion of Methods .................................................................................................. 35 vi Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 36 Analysis Methods .......................................................................................................... 37 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ................................................................................................... 39 North Carolina ............................................................................................................... 39 Pennsylvania .................................................................................................................. 45 Wisconsin ...................................................................................................................... 51 Arizona .......................................................................................................................... 57 Iowa ............................................................................................................................... 62 Washington .................................................................................................................... 67 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION........................................................................................... 74 The Big Picture .............................................................................................................. 74 Highlights from Each State ........................................................................................... 76 Answering the Research Questions ............................................................................... 79 Responding to Gerrymandering .................................................................................... 81 Contributions to the Literature ...................................................................................... 81 Limitations to the Study ................................................................................................ 82 Future Research ............................................................................................................. 83 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 83 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 85 APPENDIX A NORTH CAROLINA .............................................................................. 89 APPENDIX B PENNSYLVANIA ................................................................................. 101 APPENDIX C WISCONSIN .......................................................................................... 113 APPENDIX D ARIZONA .............................................................................................. 125 APPENDIX E IOWA ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • H.Doc. 108-224 Black Americans in Congress 1870-2007
    “The Negroes’ Temporary Farewell” JIM CROW AND THE EXCLUSION OF AFRICAN AMERICANS FROM CONGRESS, 1887–1929 On December 5, 1887, for the first time in almost two decades, Congress convened without an African-American Member. “All the men who stood up in awkward squads to be sworn in on Monday had white faces,” noted a correspondent for the Philadelphia Record of the Members who took the oath of office on the House Floor. “The negro is not only out of Congress, he is practically out of politics.”1 Though three black men served in the next Congress (51st, 1889–1891), the number of African Americans serving on Capitol Hill diminished significantly as the congressional focus on racial equality faded. Only five African Americans were elected to the House in the next decade: Henry Cheatham and George White of North Carolina, Thomas Miller and George Murray of South Carolina, and John M. Langston of Virginia. But despite their isolation, these men sought to represent the interests of all African Americans. Like their predecessors, they confronted violent and contested elections, difficulty procuring desirable committee assignments, and an inability to pass their legislative initiatives. Moreover, these black Members faced further impediments in the form of legalized segregation and disfranchisement, general disinterest in progressive racial legislation, and the increasing power of southern conservatives in Congress. John M. Langston took his seat in Congress after contesting the election results in his district. One of the first African Americans in the nation elected to public office, he was clerk of the Brownhelm (Ohio) Townshipn i 1855.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerrymandering Becomes a Problem
    VOLUME TWENTY FOUR • NUMBER TWO WINTER 2020 THE SPECIAL ELECTION EDITION A LEGAL NEWSPAPER FOR KIDS Gerrymandering Becomes a Problem Battling Over for the States to Resolve How to Elect by Phyllis Raybin Emert a President by Michael Barbella Gerrymandering on a partisan basis is not new to politics. The term gerrymander dates back to the 1800s when it was used to mock The debate on how the President Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, who manipulated congressional of the United States should be elected lines in the state until the map of one district looked like a salamander. is almost as old as the country itself. Redistricting, which is the redrawing of district maps, happens every Contrary to popular belief, voters 10 years after the U.S. Census takes place. Whatever political party is do not elect the president and vice in power at that time has the advantage since, in most states, they president directly; instead, they choose are in charge of drawing the maps. electors to form an Electoral College “Partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of politicians where the official vote is cast. drawing voting districts for their own political advantage,” During the Constitutional Convention says Eugene D. Mazo, a professor at Rutgers Law School and of 1787, a an expert on election law and the voting process. few ways to Professor Mazo explains that politicians, with the use of advanced computer elect the chief technology, use methods of “packing” and “cracking” to move voters around to executive were different state districts, giving the edge to one political party.
    [Show full text]
  • Gone Rogue: Time to Reform the Presidential Primary Debates
    Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Discussion Paper Series #D-67, January 2012 Gone Rogue: Time to Reform the Presidential Primary Debates by Mark McKinnon Shorenstein Center Reidy Fellow, Fall 2011 Political Communications Strategist Vice Chairman Hill+Knowlton Strategies Research Assistant: Sacha Feinman © 2012 President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved. How would the course of history been altered had P.T. Barnum moderated the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858? Today’s ultimate showman and on-again, off-again presidential candidate Donald Trump invited the Republican presidential primary contenders to a debate he planned to moderate and broadcast over the Christmas holidays. One of a record 30 such debates and forums held or scheduled between May 2011 and March 2012, this, more than any of the previous debates, had the potential to be an embarrassing debacle. Trump “could do a lot of damage to somebody,” said Karl Rove, the architect of President George W. Bush’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns, in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. “And I suspect it’s not going to be to the candidate that he’s leaning towards. This is a man who says himself that he is going to run— potentially run—for the president of the United States starting next May. Why do we have that person moderating a debate?” 1 Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 Republican nominee for president, also reacted: “I guarantee you, there are too many debates and we have lost the focus on what the candidates’ vision for America is..
    [Show full text]
  • FIGHTING VOTER SUPPRESSION PRESENTED by ELLEN PRICE -MALOY APRIL 26, 2021 VIDEOS to WATCH Stacey Abrams on 3 Ways Votes Are Suppressed – Youtube
    FIGHTING VOTER SUPPRESSION PRESENTED BY ELLEN PRICE -MALOY APRIL 26, 2021 VIDEOS TO WATCH Stacey Abrams on 3 ways votes are suppressed – YouTube Stacey Abrams discussed with Jelani Cobb the three ways that voter suppression occurs in America: registration access restrictions, ballot access restriction... The History of U.S. Voting Rights | Things Explained Who can vote today looked a lot different from those who could vote when the United States was first founded. This video covers the history of voting rights, including women's suffrage, Black disenfranchisement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the various methods American voters can cast their ballots today. For more episodes, specials, and ... 2020 election: What is voter suppression? Tactics used against communities of color throughout history, in Trump-Biden race - ABC7 San Francisco NEW YORK -- As Election Day draws close, some American citizens have experienced barriers to voting, particularly in communities of color. While stories about voter suppression across the nation ... SUPPORT DEMOCRACY H.R.1/S.1 The legislation contains several provisions to fight voter suppression, including national automatic voter registration, prohibitions on voter roll purging and federal partisan gerrymandering, and improved election security measures. It also strengthens ethics providing a strong enforcement of Congress’ Ethics Code – leading to prosecution of those who break the Ethics code and standards and for all three branches of government, e.g. by requiring presidential candidates to disclose 10 years of tax returns and prohibiting members of Congress from using taxpayer dollars to settle sexual harassment cases. The bill aims to curb corporate influence in politics by forcing Super PACs to disclose their donors, requiring government contractors to disclose political spending, and prohibiting coordination between candidates and Super PACs, among other reforms.
    [Show full text]
  • Party and Non-Party Political Committees Vol. II State and Local Party Detailed Tables
    FEC REPORTS ON FINANCIAL ACTIVITY 1989 - 1990 FINAL REPORT .. PARTY AND NON-PARTY POLITICAL COKMITTEES VOL.II STATE AND LOCAL PARTY DETAILED TABLES FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463 OCTOBER 1991 I I I I I I I I FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Commissioners John w. McGarry, Chairman Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman Lee Ann Elliott, Thomas J. Josefiak Danny L. McDonald Scott E. Thomas Donnald K. Anderson, Ex Officio Clerk of the u.s. House of Representatives Walter J. Stewart Secretary of the Senate John C. Surina, Staff Director Lawrence M. Noble, General Counsel Comments and inquiries about format should be addressed to the Reports Coordinator, Data System Development Division, who coordinated the production of this REPORT. Copies of 1989-1990 FINAL REPORT, PARTY AND NON-PARTY POLITICAL COMMITTEES, may be obtained b writing to the Public Records Office, Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463. Prices are: VOL. I - $10.00, VOL. II - $10.00, VOL. III - $10.00, VOL IV - $10.00. Checks should be made payable to the Federal Election Commission. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DESCRIPTION OF REPORT iv II. SUMMARY OF TABLES vi III. EXPLANATION OF COLUMNS viii IV. TABLES: SELECTED FINANCIAL ACTIVITY AND ASSISTANCE TO CANDIDATES, DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE AND LOCAL POLITICAL COMMITTEES A. SELECTED FINANCIAL ACTIVITY OF DEMOCRATIC STATE AND LOCAL POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND THEIR ASSISTANCE TO CANDIDATES BY OFFICE AND PARTY Alabama 1 Missouri 37 Colorado 7 New York 43 Idaho 13 Ohio 49 Kansas 19
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    No. 14-1382 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SARA PARKER PAULEY, in her official capacity as Director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources Solid Waste Management Program, Defendant–Appellant. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Civil Case No. 2:13-CV-04022-NKL – Judge Nanette K. Laughrey Brief Amicus Curiae of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Appellant Eric S. Baxter Asma T. Uddin Diana M. Verm The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 3000 K St. NW, Suite 220 Washington, DC 20007 (202) 349-7221 [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has no parent corporations and issues no shares of stock. s/ Eric S. Baxter Eric S. Baxter The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 3000 K Street, NW, Ste. 220 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 349-7221 [email protected] i TABLE OF CONTENTS RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................ iv INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ...................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 3 ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 5 I. The State’s interpretation of its “no aid” provisions raises federal constitutional
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Referenda and Primary Election Materials
    :::: DISCLAIMER :::: The following document was uploaded by ballotpedia.org staff with the written permission of the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research for non-commercial use only. It is not intended for redistribution. For information on rights and usage of this file, please contact: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 www.icpsr.umich.edu For general information on rights and usage of Ballotpedia content, please contact: [email protected] ICPSR Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Referenda and Primary Election Materials Part 12: Referenda Elections for Indiana Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR 0006 This document was previously available in paper format only. It was converted to Portable Document Format (PDF), with no manual editing, on the date below as part of ICPSR's electronic document conversion project. The document may not be completely searchable. No additional updating of this collection has been performed (pagination, missing pages, etc.). June 2002 ICPSR Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Referenda and Primary Election Materials Part 12: Referenda Elections for Indiana Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR 0006 REFERENDAAND PRIMARY ELECTION MATERIALS (ICPSR 0006) Principal Investigator Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy
    0/-*/&4637&: *ODPMMBCPSBUJPOXJUI6OHMVFJU XFIBWFTFUVQBTVSWFZ POMZUFORVFTUJPOT UP MFBSONPSFBCPVUIPXPQFOBDDFTTFCPPLTBSFEJTDPWFSFEBOEVTFE 8FSFBMMZWBMVFZPVSQBSUJDJQBUJPOQMFBTFUBLFQBSU $-*$,)&3& "OFMFDUSPOJDWFSTJPOPGUIJTCPPLJTGSFFMZBWBJMBCMF UIBOLTUP UIFTVQQPSUPGMJCSBSJFTXPSLJOHXJUI,OPXMFEHF6OMBUDIFE ,6JTBDPMMBCPSBUJWFJOJUJBUJWFEFTJHOFEUPNBLFIJHIRVBMJUZ CPPLT0QFO"DDFTTGPSUIFQVCMJDHPPE Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy In Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy, Erik J. Engstrom offers an important, historically grounded perspective on the stakes of congressional redistricting by evaluating the impact of gerrymandering on elections and on party control of the U.S. national government from 1789 through the reapportionment revolution of the 1960s. In this era before the courts supervised redistricting, state parties enjoyed wide discretion with regard to the timing and structure of their districting choices. Although Congress occasionally added language to federal- apportionment acts requiring equally populous districts, there is little evidence this legislation was enforced. Essentially, states could redistrict largely whenever and however they wanted, and so, not surpris- ingly, political considerations dominated the process. Engstrom employs the abundant cross- sectional and temporal varia- tion in redistricting plans and their electoral results from all the states— throughout U.S. history— in order to investigate the causes and con- sequences of partisan redistricting. His analysis
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Intolerance to Religious Gerrymandering.Pdf
    Constitutional Intolerance to Religious Gerrymandering Jonathan J. Kim and Eugene Temchenko Can the government pass a law criminalizing consumption of alcohol everywhere except at bars, hotels, clubs, restaurants and private homes? In practice, the law would ban sacramental consumption of alcohol. Yet surprisingly, in many circuits this law would not offend the First Amendment. There is a four-way circuit split on how to treat explicit and implicit secular exemptions under Employment Division v. Smith and Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah. Some circuits disregard all exemptions so long as there is no evidence of discriminatory intent. Other circuits apply strict scrutiny to every law that contains a single secular exemption. But application of strict scrutiny in free exercise context rarely results in a victory for the religious group. A series of cases significantly watered down strict scrutiny in the free exercise clause context, leaving religious individuals without a constitutional right to free exercise of religion. The purpose of this Article is to address these two related issues: first, when do exemptions warrant scrutiny; and second, when do laws fail scrutiny? The Article argues that a law warrants scrutiny when it exempts secular conduct that undermines the objective of the law to the same extent as a religious exemption would. A law fails scrutiny, in turn, when the compelling government interest and the harm to third-parties does not outweigh the harm the law causes to a religious individual. The right to Free Exercise deserves greater protection. It is a right by which people express a core part of their identities.
    [Show full text]
  • The War on Voting Rights
    The War on Voting Rights John Shattuck Senior Fellow, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and Professor of Practice in Diplomacy, The Fletcher School, Tufts University Aaron Huang Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School Elisabeth Thoreson-Green Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School CARR CENTER DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Discussion Paper 2019-003 For Academic Citation: John Shattuck, Aaron Huang and Elisabeth Thoreson-Green. The War on Voting Rights. CCDP 2019-003, February 2019. The views expressed in Carr Center Discussion Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Harvard Kennedy School or of Harvard University. Discussion Papers have not undergone formal review and approval. Such papers are included in this series to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. The War on Voting Rights About the Authors John Shattuck, Professor of Practice in Diplomacy, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University; Senior Fellow, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School; and Visiting Research Scholar, Social Sciences Matrix, University of California Berkeley (Spring 2019) Aaron Huang Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School Elisabeth Thoreson-Green Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Harvard Kennedy School 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 www.carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu
    [Show full text]
  • Voting & Vote-By-Mail
    VOTING & VOTE-BY-MAIL VOTING INFORMATION Designating Someone to Pick-Up Your Ballot How to Mark a Ballot Beginning nine (9) days before Election Day, you may To mark your ballot authorize, in writing, another person to pick up your properly, completely fill in vote-by-mail ballot. The person picking up your ballot must provide photo ID, signed written authorization the oval to the left of each of your choices. from you, and complete an affidavit signed by both. The affidavit can be printed from votesjc.gov. 2 0 2 2 V OTER G UIDE Voter Bill of Rights On Election Day, in addition to the above Vote and have his or her vote accurately counted requirements, vote-by-mail ballots shall only be issued Election Dates to a voter or voter’s immediate family member when Cast a vote if he or she is in line at the official closing of the polls in there is a stated emergency. that county Primary Election August 23, 2022 Completing Your Vote-By-Mail Ballot Return Envelope Ask for and receive assistance in voting **Important Information for Vote-By-Mail Voters** General Election November 8, 2022 The signature or identifying “mark” on the voter’s Receive up to two replacement ballots if he or she makes a mistake prior to the ballot being cast certificate on the return vote-by-mail ballot envelope Voter Registration & Party Change Deadlines must match the signature or identifying “mark” on file An explanation if his or her registration or identity is in question in your voter record; therefore, it is important to keep Primary Election July 25, 2022 your signature up-to-date.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE June 15, 2005 by Mr
    June 15, 2005 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 12755 EC–2638. A communication from the Gen- EC–2648. A communication from the Assist- tities’’ (FRL No. 7924–9) received on June 14, eral Counsel, Federal Emergency Manage- ant Administrator, National Marine Fish- 2005; to the Committee on Environment and ment Agency, Department of Homeland Se- eries Service, Department of Commerce, Public Works. curity, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re- transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of EC–2657. A communication from the Prin- port of a rule entitled ‘‘Final Flood Ele- a rule entitled ‘‘Atlantic Highly Migratory cipal Deputy Associate Administrator, Office vation Determinations (70 FR 29639)’’ (44 CFR Species; Atlantic Shark Quotas and Season of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, Envi- 67) received on June 14, 2005; to the Com- Lengths’’ ((RIN0648–AT07) (I.D. No. 020205F)) ronmental Protection Agency, transmitting, mittee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Af- received on June 14, 2005; to the Committee pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled fairs. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. ‘‘Hazardous Waste Management System; EC–2639. A communication from the Gen- EC–2649. A communication from the Acting Modification of the Hazardous Waste Mani- eral Counsel, Federal Emergency Manage- White House Liaison, Technology Adminis- fest System; Correction’’ (FRL No. 7925–1) re- ment Agency, Department of Homeland Se- tration, Department of Commerce, transmit- ceived on June 14, 2005; to the Committee on curity, transmitting, pursuant to law, the re- ting, pursuant to law, the report of a va- Environment and Public Works. port of a rule entitled ‘‘Final Flood Ele- cancy in the position of Under Secretary for EC–2658.
    [Show full text]