Re-apportionment...yea or nay

In view of what is taking place in the state of Texas, and the impact on other states, (Illinois, New York, and California) I thought it might be a good idea to re-visit a classroom lesson I gave in regards to the re-apportionment of Congressional districts as prescribed by the Constitution.  I have borrowed information from the text I used for class, “Magruder’s American Government”.  I consider it the “Bible” of American Government textbooks.
 
So, without any further thought, here goes…
 
One may ask, why does re-apportionment take place?
 
·                Purpose: The fundamental reason for reapportionment is to ensure that representation in the House of Representatives reflects the changing demographics of the United States, upholding the principle of "one person, one vote" within the Congressional districts of each state.

·                Process: This process occurs every ten years following the constitutionally mandated decennial census. The Census Bureau determines each state's population, and these figures are used to calculate how the 435 House seats are to be divided among the states. The current method for this allocation is the method of equal proportions.
​
·               Impact: Reapportionment can lead to states gaining or losing seats in the House, depending on whether their population has grown or shrunk relative to other states. This then triggers the process of redistricting within the affected states, where new district boundaries are drawn to ensure each congressional district has a roughly equal population.

Reapportionment is closely tied to several important concepts in American government, including:

• Federalism: The process highlights the division of power between the federal government (which conducts the census and calculates apportionment) and state governments (which handle redistricting).
• Democracy and Representation: The goal is to ensure fair and accurate representation in the House, reflecting the will of the people in each state.
• Gerrymandering: The redistricting process, while intended to be fair, can sometimes be manipulated by political parties through practices like gerrymandering to gain an electoral advantage. 

What is happening in Texas, (at the request of the President, who has said he doesn’t believe he should follow the Constitution because he has brilliant lawyers to do that work for him), is the Governor of Texas is trying to re-district the state and provide five (5) Republican seats up for election in the mid-term elections coming up in 2026. Texas state legislators, all Democrats, have fled Texas so the Republicans would not have a quorum present to conduct legislative business.  The FBI, at the request of the executive branch of the US government, is trying to “round up the legislators” and return them to Texas.  It is unclear if Democratic legislators would attend any legislative session called by the Governor of Texas.

Some pundits say the Democratic legislators are failing their responsibility to the voters of their respective legislators, while others believe the action of the Democratic legislators is a way of protesting against an unconstitutional action of the Texas Governor.

In response to the proposed action of Texas, the Governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker, has taken the President as well as Governor Greg Abbott to task about this proposed action by stating Illinois will re-district as well to counteract the move by Texas.  The states of California and New York indicated they will follow the lead of Illinois.

With all of this being said, I must ask, who is in the wrong here?  The Constitution clearly states when the National Census and re-apportionment process is to take place.  If Texas does re-district, and Illinois, New York, and California follow through with their plans of action, aren’t all four states breaking Constitutional law?  Who is trying to protect democracy as defined by the Constitution?  

​And which states are being played by the President?  Isn’t President Trump’s asking Texas to find five MAGA districts similar to asking the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find 11,780 votes"?

In essence, we once again see the President’s disdain for rules and regulations of the Constitution he doesn’t like…because the President can do what he wants to do because SCOTUS gave the President immunity while he was performing in an official capacity.  And…just so it doesn’t go unmentioned once more…”I have brilliant lawyers working for me.”

I have had friends tell me the Constitution is just a piece of paper; it can be changed.  Ahhh, but there is a process for that as well…and it isn’t at the whim of the President.