Federalism, National Security, Gerrymandering, and Elections: Comprehensive Notes

The Federal Government, Cybersecurity, and National Security

The government employs many people in cybersecurity to prevent cybercrime. This is a very important job because threats on the internet can really harm our country's safety (national security).
The U.S. Constitution gives the government the job of creating and taking care of an army. This is why the U.S. has a very large and powerful military, with many businesses working to support it.
Even though people often imagine a lot of unnecessary rules and processes in Washington D.C., a big portion of the money collected from taxes goes towards the military. This shows how much money is spent on national security.
Because national security is so important, the government constantly checks and improves its abilities in cybersecurity and other security areas.

Defense Spending and Global Comparisons

The U.S. spends a lot of money on defense, more than many other countries. For example, in $2021$ , the U.S. spent a very large amount compared to its allies. This spending has continued to increase in recent years as countries like China and Russia also spend more.
The United States is a big country geographically, which helps explain why it has such a large military presence. We often compare the U.S. defense budget to major economies like China, India, and Russia, and the U.S. budget is usually much larger.
There isn't an exact "right" amount for a country to spend on defense.
Government defense spending is always a topic of political discussion. The Department of Defense (DOD) has a lot of power and receives a huge amount of money, which makes the federal government's influence even bigger.
Comparing spending in $2021$ and later years shows how global events have led to countries spending more, potentially changing the balance of power in the world.

Federalism, the Supreme Court, and Devolution

Federalism is about how power is shared between the federal (national) government and state governments. The Supreme Court plays a big role in deciding how this power is balanced.
Sometimes the Court allows states to make their own rules because it makes more sense for issues like environmental protection, which can vary depending on a state's economy, climate, and resources.
The Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder changed how a part of the Voting Rights Act worked. Before, some states with a history of discrimination needed "preclearance" from the federal government before changing their voting laws. After this rule was ended, it affected how different states, especially those with many minority citizens, managed their policies.
This balance of power constantly shifts: the federal government might take more control, then the Court might give more power back to the states, and this can change over time depending on the issue.
This back and forth is linked to devolution, which is when the federal government gives authority for certain programs back to the states or local governments to manage.
Debates over who should have more power (federal or state) often depend on the specific problem and the political situation at the time.

Devolution: The Counter-Movement in American Governing Philosophy

A key idea is that when big changes happen in government, there's often a strong reaction against them. This is a repeating pattern in American history.
For example, in the 1960s–1970s, some conservatives felt the federal government was getting too powerful after the Civil Rights Act. They saw federal laws enforcing integration as going too far and argued for more local control.
The discussion compares what people think should happen (like preferring local control or higher taxes) with what actually happens in real life. Sometimes the results are different from what was expected.
Big global events like the oil embargo and financial crises in the 1980s made people less interested in federal government involvement. Other crises also changed how people viewed the federal government's role.
Welfare reform under President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s and the "Contract with America" in 1996 showed a move towards devolution. This was a political plan to reduce the size and reach of many federal programs.
Devolution means transferring authority for programs that the federal government used to run back to states and local governments. This period was a reaction against the expansion of federal power seen during the New Deal era.
The "pendulum" of power keeps swinging back and forth, usually depending on the specific issue rather than a single idea or philosophy.
Immigration policy shows how devolution works: in the 1990s, some immigration control was given to states, but during crises (like wartime), the federal government takes back strong control.
After the 9/11 attacks, the federal government rapidly expanded its power, especially in homeland security. New agencies like the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) were created, and airport security became a widely felt part of national policy.
Whenever security measures are expanded, there are often concerns about civil liberties (people's individual rights). For example, debates about monitoring phone calls or widespread surveillance.
Both the Obama and Trump administrations used Homeland Security in different ways, leading to ongoing arguments about how much power it should have and how it should be watched.
The $2008$ economic stimulus package (a $700$ billion dollar plan) was another example of the federal government greatly expanding its spending and influence to deal with a crisis.
The COVID-19 pandemic is described as another major crisis that changed policies and influenced elections.
The idea is that around $2024$ (and other similar times), people were often dissatisfied with governments, leading incumbents (those already in power) to lose elections worldwide.
Overall, crises tend to cause the federal and state governments to reconfigure (change) who has power.

War, Security, and Civil Liberties: Post-9/11 Realignments

The time after 9/11 brought major changes in security policy and led to new organizations like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and TSA. These expanded security efforts were usually justified by national security concerns.
There's always a debate between protecting civil liberties and ensuring security. Examples include arguments about government surveillance and its impact on individual rights.
The note suggests that a future government (e.g., in $2028$ ) might put restrictions on civil liberties, and the political reactions would be predictable, as different parties have strong feelings about balancing security and freedom.
The Obama administration supported security initiatives but within a certain framework, while the Trump administration used homeland security in ways that some found controversial, pushing its reach beyond its original purpose.
Before 9/11, airport security was very different (e.g., no widespread searches). After 9/11, there was a big shift towards actively screening and preventing threats.
Even while expanding security, there has always been debate and disagreement across different presidencies about overseeing these powerful programs.

Crises of Federalism: Gerrymandering and Redistricting

Gerrymandering is a major problem for federalism. It's the practice of drawing electoral district lines in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage over another.
A clear example from North Carolina in $2018$ : Democrats won about $51\%$ of the votes statewide for Congress but only got $3$ out of $13$ seats ( $\frac{3}{13}$ ). This shows how district boundaries can heavily affect who gets elected.
- Specifically for NC state races: Democrats got about $51\%$ of the vote for state representatives but only $46\%$ of the seats. For the state Senate, about $50\%$ of the vote led to only $42\%$ of the seats. For Congress, nearly half the votes resulted in only $3$ of $13$ seats.
The main ways gerrymandering is done are:
- Packing: This means putting as many voters who support the opposing party as possible into a few districts. This "wastes" their votes by making their majority so overwhelming in those packed districts that they can't win other districts.
- Cracking: This means spreading out voters who support the opposing party across many different districts. This dilutes their votes, making sure they can't form a majority in any single district.
Tom Hoffler (whose name appears as Hans Huffler/Hoffler in other sources) was a key person in drawing North Carolina's redistricting maps. He used packing and cracking to shape political power.
District 12 in North Carolina is famous for being a very long, skinny district. It was created by packing Black voters from cities like Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and Charlotte into one district.
Hoffler also applied similar strategies to state Senate districts, concentrating voters in specific areas.
In $2016$ – $2017$ , federal courts decided these maps were unconstitutional because they used racial gerrymandering, which means they unfairly reduced the political power of Black voters.
After the Shelby County decision ( $2013$ ), federal rules for preclearance changed. This meant that state courts could challenge gerrymandering based on partisan (party-based) reasons, often using their state constitutions rather than federal laws.
In North Carolina, the state Supreme Court ruled in September $2019$ that partisan gerrymandering went against the state constitution. This returned the job of redistricting back to the state level. The court saw this as a way to stop political parties from manipulating elections, rather than a federal issue.
In recent years, several states (like Florida and Pennsylvania) have made it harder to draw district lines to favor one party. However, many of Hoffler's original gerrymandered maps are still used in other places, showing how persistent this problem is.
An interesting idea is that redistricting is a form of democracy, but it's like an election happening "in reverse." Instead of voters choosing representatives, the map-drawing process effectively chooses which voters will be in which districts, thus shaping the outcome of elections.
The question of who has authority is important: states have historically had a lot of freedom in how they run elections, including how to register voters, early voting, and mail-in voting. While it would be good to have consistent rules across all states, federalism limits the federal government's ability to impose uniform regulations across all $50$ states.
So, redistricting shows how politicians act strategically and highlights a basic tension in federalism: how to balance states' ability to make their own rules with the need for fair and representative democracy.

Elections Administration and the Federal-State Balance

States have always had a lot of power over how elections are run. This includes rules for voter registration, early voting, mail-in voting, and other details.
While letting states manage elections protects local control, it also means there are different rules everywhere. This can cause problems for federalism when district lines and election rules are used to keep a certain political party in power.
There's an unstated suggestion that some consistent rules across states would be good to ensure fairness. This implies a potential conflict between federal oversight and states' rights when it comes to elections.

Takeaways: Change, Backlash, and Real-World Relevance

A main point is that big social and political changes are often followed by strong reactions. These reactions affect the balance of federalism and the role of government.
Change can sometimes lead to a more diverse and democratic system, but it can also cause movements that go against progress, depending on what the public thinks and how institutions are set up.
The note emphasizes that devolution and federalism are ongoing processes and depend on the specific issue at hand. Federal power can grow and shrink over time.
Redistricting is a puzzling concept: it's a democratic process (drawing lines based on political geography), but it also acts like an election in reverse, influencing which voters choose which representatives.
The way power, money, institutions, and policy choices interact (the political economy of power) drives these changes in who governs and how elections are conducted. This has big consequences for minority representation, civil liberties, security policy, and the balance between federal and state power.
In simple terms, American governance is a system where federal power, state independence, court decisions, population changes, and how elections work are constantly interacting to shape what policies are made and how legitimate our democracy is.