In a move that may help them stay in office despite radical reformulations of their districts by the Republicans that control the state redistricting process, Detroit Democrats Hansen Clarke and John Conyers are expected to swap districts in the race for reelection in 2012.

Clarke, 54, the first member of Congress of Bangledeshi descent and a former chief of staff for Conyers, is serving his first term in the House.

In 2010 he defeated district 13‘s longtime Democratic representative, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick amid fallout from the corruption indictment of her husband and son, Kwame Kilpatrick, the former Detroit mayor.

Clarke’s district includes half of Detroit and the suburbs of Ecorse, River Rouge, Harper Woods, Wyandotte, Lincoln Park and Grosse Pointe.

Conyers, 82, is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and has represented the 14th district since 1965. This district encompasses Northwest Detroit, Highland Park and Hamtramck, Dearborn, Southgate and Trenton.

Michigan lost about 54,000 residents over the last decade according to the 2010 census, and will be losing one member of its Congressional delegation.

The new Republican-drawn district map seeks to ensure that it will be a Democrat that is eliminated.

Conyer’s district is one of the most dramatically changed, as the new map puts the majority of his voters into Hansen Clarke’s District 13.

Last week via Facebook and Twitter Clarke announced that he would seek reelection in the 14th district — the one the Conyers represents now.

Clarke said he made the announcement in order to end speculation and allow him to concentrate on his job.

“It was a decision that he made based on community support,” Clarke spokeswoman Kim Bowman said, noting that “business and community leaders stressed that they would like Representative Clarke to stay in the district and represent people he’s represented for a decade.”

Some say the move to switch districts should be seen as a favor to his old boss.

Conyers has had some bad publicity lately. His wife, former Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, is in federal prison, convicted of bribery, and earlier this year he was forced to apologize and repay the U.S. Treasury $5,600 for his son’s inappropriate use of his taxpayer funded SUV.

Conyers has said that he will seek reelection but his office would not comment on where he will run.

Many political observers say that he will have a hard time winning if he stays where he is.

The Detroit News calls the new 14th district, “a land of opposites where political rules more than community similarities determine who is lumped together.”

Political commentator Jack Lessenberry describes it as “one of the most bizarrely gerrymandered districts in recent memory.”

“The district sweeps from the old moneyed Grosse Pointes across a swatch of Detroit, and then across Oakland County, taking in destitute Pontiac, the leafy suburban districts of Southfield and Farmington Hills, and heavily Jewish West Bloomfield and Oak Park,” he writes in a recent piece for Dome magazine.

Though the district still technically has a majority black population, Lessenberry said, the majority of primary voters may not be black and “few white voters are enthusiastic about being represented by the 82-year-old Conyers.”

Clarke who served terms in the state House and Senate, has already represented many of those who will be the constituents in the new 14th, and is seen as having a better chance than Conyers of winning it.

Inside Michigan Politics editor and former Republican state Senator Bill Ballenger, said that it would make sense for Clarke and Conyers to follow their constituents into new districts but their odds of success depend on how the field of challengers shapes up.

“[T]here is SO MUCH TIME between now and the filing deadline next May that it’s fruitless to speculate about who will file for what against whom,” he said via e-mail. “Will Conyers, now well into his 80s, even run again? [Rep. Dale] Kildee decided not to. We’ll see.”

In July, Democratic Representative Dale Kildee of Flint, 81 announced that he would not seek another term.

Ballenger’s comment about the possibility of Conyers retiring points to another evolving dynamic in Michigan’s delegation.

Though Republicans Fred Upton and Dave Camp have attained leadership positions in the important House Energy and Ways and Means Committees and spots on the budget-cutting Congressional ‘supercommittee’, the overall influence of Michigan’s delegation is on the decline due to the loss of several longterm incumbents.

While Kilpatrick lost in a primary race, Vern Ehlers (R-Grand Rapids), Pete Hoekstra (R-Holland) and Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) decided to retire.

By seeking reelection in a more challenging district and allowing Conyers a better shot at keeping his seat, freshman Clarke may well prolong the tenure of one of Michigan’s most senior representatives.

Michigan’s Republican-controlled redistricting map has prompted plans by Detroit Reps. Hansen Clarke and John Conyers to swap districts in the next election.



Mlive reports:

The new-look 14th, which Conyers has represented since 1965, snakes through parts of northeast Detroit and Grosse Pointe before making its way north through Oakland County up to Pontiac. Its odd shape and seemingly disparate community composition may make it a more difficult district for a Detroit Democrat to hold on too, but Clarke is less divisive than Conyers and could fare well.

The redrawn 13th district, which includes a large chunk of Detroit traditionally represented by Conyers, is considered a safer bet for Democrats. Clarke’s move, then, could be seen as a nod to his former boss.

Michigan, the only state to lose population in the 2010 census, is losing one seat in Congress.

Rep. Fred Durhal (D-Detroit), chairman of the caucus, said last night that the group expects to challenge the law in federal court within a few weeks.

The Emergency Manager law, also known as Public Act 4, violates the voting rights of people in Michigan, he said, and runs afoul of Constitutional provisions against enacting laws to violate contracts.

Durhal said the group also expects to file suit in state court for violations of the Home Rule Act which empowers communities to elect their local governments.

Conyers is the only member of Michigan’s Congressional delegation to publicly criticize the law.

In a statement last month he said that allowing Emergency Managers to dissolve local governments, “implicitly targets minority communities that are disproportionately impacted by the economic downturn, without providing meaningful support for improved economic opportunity.”

Conyers called the bill an opportunistic Republican power grab aimed at crushing workers rights.

Durhal said that he expects the group will ask the court for an injunction on the law.

“If we are going to stop the travesty caused by this law,” he said, “we need to start with Benton Harbor.”

Conyers is the longest serving African-American in Congress, and is second only to Michigan Democratic Congressman John Dingell in being the longest serving member of Congress.

But a plan to run for re-election in 2012 has complications, the News reports. For starters, Republican lawmakers have to draw redistricting plans that eliminate one seat in Congress. Chances are, they are not going to eliminate a Republican seat — which means they will target a Democratic seat. This means Conyers’ district could be expanded to include some Detroit suburbs.

That could make things more difficult for Conyers, whose wife is currently serving federal prison time on corruption charges stemming from her time on the Detroit City Council. MLive.com does a fairly good job of laying out the uphill battle Conyers could have in seeking a 25th term in Congress in the event lawmakers expand his district into the suburbs.

The couple was married by proxy while Michael H. Ferschke Jr., a sergeant in the Marines, was overseas. Ferschke died in combat about a month later, and his wife, Hota, now wants to move to the United States to raise their son, whom they found they were expecting shortly before Ferschke deployed. But the Department of Homeland Security does not recognize their marriage to allow her to move to the country: The marriage is considered invalid under current immigration law because it was never consummated.

The law likely only impacts a small number of marriages, but for those it would help, it could ease the migration process considerably. The bill does not take away the consummation requirement to consider a marriage legitimate for immigration rights, but creates an exception “in cases where the failure to consummate the marriage is caused by a physical separation due to active-duty military service aboard by one of the parties,” Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) told Navy Times.

The bill will next move to the Senate, where bill sponsor Rep. John Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) hopes it will pass before the end of the year.

Colbert was invited after he spent a day working on a farm as part of the United Farm Workers of America’s “Take Our Jobs” initiative. His appearance at the committee was somewhat controversial, with critics calling it a stunt. “Does one day in the field make you an ‘expert witness?’” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) asked. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) even asked Colbert to leave so they could get on with more serious testimonies. After he heard from an anti-AgJOBS expert, Conyers took back his request, and Colbert stayed to testify.

Still, Colbert made some serious statements about the need for immigration reform. “Please don’t make me do this again; It is really, really hard,” he said. “This brief experience gave me some understanding why so few Americans are clamoring for seasonal migrant worker jobs.”

He advocated for specific policies, arguing Congress should pass AgJOBs, which would allow farm workers to come to the U.S. as guest workers and eventually allow some to become legal U.S. residents. While current farm conditions are tough and wages are low, Colbert argued wages and conditions could be improved if Congress enacted the bill or reformed the worker visa system.

“If your coworker can’t be exploited, you’re less likely to be exploited yourself,” Colbert said. “Maybe that would improve conditions on these farms so Americans would take these jobs.”

Immigration reform advocates have pushed for smaller reform legislation, such as AgJOBS and the DREAM Act, as comprehensive immigration reform looks increasingly unlikely in the current political climate. Going briefly off character to advocate a Democrat-pushed policy, Colbert said he supports comprehensive reform.

“We’ve ignored this issue for way too long,” Colbert said. “It’s time to roll up our sleeves and face this issue mano to — whatever the Spanish word for ‘mano’ is.”

President Obama, addressing military families on Sunday at an Independence Day celebration, faces growing opposition to the Afghan war from within his own party. (epa/ZUMApress.com)

The war in Afghanistan has produced divisions among Democrats in Congress from the start, but a series of votes on Thursday night revealed a rising tide of Democratic discontentment that could alter the trajectory of the Obama administration’s approach to the conflict.

[Security1] A measure to fund the administration’s 30,000-troop surge with $33 billion narrowly passed late Thursday, by a 215-210 margin. But the inclusion of domestic spending projects in the overall package appeared to boost its support among some Democrats, while a number of votes on amendments signaled a growing desire for an exit strategy.

“The close vote shows the rising disagreements over war policy,” said Darrell M. West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. “The war has never been popular among Democratic activists and now lawmakers are starting to express their own doubts.”

An amendment calling for a flexible withdrawal timetable — sponsored by Reps. David Obey (D-Wis.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) — failed to pass the House, but it won 162 votes, including those of 153 Democrats, three-fifths of the Democratic caucus.

McGovern hailed it as an “important milestone” in a statement released Friday. “This vote should send a signal to the Administration that Congress is increasingly troubled by risking the lives of our troops and borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars for ‘nation-building’ in Afghanistan while we are facing a dire economic situation here at home,” he said. “I will continue to work to build bi-partisan support for a meaningful exit strategy from this war.”

An amendment introduced Thursday by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) proposed to restrict future war funding to troop redeployment and protecting soldiers presently in combat. It received 100 votes, including those of 93 Democrats. A third amendment to slash war funding entirely from the bill won the votes of 25 congressmen, including 22 Democrats, while an additional 22 Democrats chose not to oppose it and voted “present.”

“Obviously, a lot of people are understandably anxious. The sustainability of this war is in some doubt,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a foreign policy expert at Brookings.

Antiwar sympathies seemed notably stronger than during a previous effort in the House to implement a withdrawal timetable, a motion in March by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) that failed 365-65. Prior attempts have likewise been overwhelmingly defeated.

Speaking out most forcefully for limits to the war were the 23 members of the “Out of Afghanistan Caucus,” established by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) on May 18.

“It’s a fool’s errand,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), one of the members, during a press conference Thursday. “Every dollar we spend in Afghanistan, every life we waste there, is a waste. … What makes us think, what arrogance gives us the right to assume that we can succeed where the Moguls, the British, the Soviets, failed?”

Also on Thursday, Reps. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Mike Honda (D-Calif.) took aim at President Obama for depicting the measure as urgent.

“It is disingenuous to say this is an ‘emergency’ supplemental,” they said in a joint statement. “The only emergency,” they said, is that “we are putting America further into debt” by “funding the longest war in history.” They added: “Last year, President Obama pledged to stop these off-budget gimmicks to hide the cost of war.”

West of Brookings noted that it’s historically unusual for presidents to face challenges over war policy from within their own party.

“Generally, members of your own party support your foreign policy,” he said. “It’s typical that you have to worry more about the opposition party than your own, and the fact that Democrats are expressing reservations should send a warning sign to the Obama administration.”

This deepening fissure could turn into a headache for the president and Democratic leaders.

“There’s been a schism in the Democratic Party over all wars since Vietnam. What matters is the intensity of it,” said Eric Alterman, of the liberal Center for American Progress. “[The antiwar coalition is] going to make it more difficult for [Obama] to continue the war, and they’re going to be a faction that has to be negotiated with.”

“But they’re not going to cut him off at the knees, they’re not to going to humiliate him, and they’re not going to destroy his presidency over it,” Alterman continued. “It’s not going to be the kind of thing that tears the party apart, as this issue has done in the past, because people have learned those lessons.”

O’Hanlon, a self-described Democrat and proponent of the Afghanistan occupation, cautioned that stripping funding now would cause Democrats to get “pilloried by Republicans” for “being weak on defense.” “It would be not only strategically unwise but politically suicidal,” he said.

And while skeptical Democrats could play an important role in determining the eventual outcome of the war, they may not wield much influence over the administration’s short-term strategy.

“This group has influence in the broader sense because obviously it has put a stake in the ground, and if things continue to go badly in Afghanistan, its influence will grow,” O’Hanlon said. “At some point it may be able to push the United States out of this conflict, but for now it’s not going to have any direct impact on strategy.”

Recent weeks and months have enhanced negative perceptions of the war, due to escalating violence, the ousting of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and charges of corruption by the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Polls suggest Americans are growing increasingly dissatisfied with the war.

The Obama administration hasn’t flinched in its commitment to the effort, and has even begun to back away from its promise to begin winding America’s involvement in the war next July. “That absolutely has not been decided,” said Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 20 on Fox News, nothing that withdrawal will be “conditions-based.” Obama said on June 28 that there’s “a lot of obsession” about the withdrawal date, which irritated some Democrats who perceived it as a snub.

It’s unclear whether Democrats will accept the president’s decision to extend it beyond then, if he chooses to.

“I think a year from now all bets are off if we haven’t seen major progress,” O’Hanlon said. “It’s possible to imagine a revolt within the party in a year.”

That’s Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), speaking to Politico’s Victoria McGrane about the left-right coalition forming against Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. A campaign that united the likes of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) probably got off the ground too late to really stop Bernanke — Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas ) comment to Politico is how Bernanke’s award from Time magazine is a plus, because it informs Americans of just what the Fed is, and sets the table for a future campaign against it.

“[The repeal] was a recipe for disaster because these banks were empowered to make large bets with depositors’ money and money they didn’t really have,” Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who sponsored the new bill, said in a statement.

When many of those bets, particularly in the housing sector, didn’t pan out, the whole deck of cards came crumbling down and U.S. taxpayers had to come to the rescue. The absence of the protections in the Glass-Steagall Act essentially turned these financial giants into quasi-government entities because they were only able to survive the recent collapse with government assistance.

Hinchey’s proposal would force the giants of Wall Street to choose whether they wanted to be commercial banks or investment houses, but they couldn’t be both. (A simple lender, for example, couldn’t also be an underwriter.) Co-sponsors include Democratic Reps. John Conyers (Mich.), Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Jay Inslee (Wash.) and John Tierney (Mass.).

The House Rules Committee will meet Tuesday to consider the proposal before it can move to the chamber floor as part of a larger tax bill the Democrats have to pass by the end of the year.

After the House Judiciary Committee worked for days shortly after September 11, 2001 to hammer out a bill that both parties’ representatives unanimously agreed to, Conyers recalled with obvious irritation, the House Rules committee managed to hack it up so much behind closed doors that by the time the full House voted on it the next day, it was unrecognizable.

“Then Chairman Dreier” — referring to Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), then chairman of the House Rules Committee — “under lord knows whose instructions, substituted that bill for another bill, that we at Judiciary had never seen. So we come here today now to consider what we do with those parts that are expiring.” Conyers proceeded to say that many of the problems being discussed at the hearing with the current law would have been addressed by the original bipartisan one, such as offering an opportunity for people harmed by the Patriot Act’s abuses to seek redress. The original law also “may have eliminated, or simplified, litigation about Patriot Act abuses that continue today,” said Conyers.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who chaired today’s hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, backed up Conyers’ version of what happened.

“We held in this committee five days of markup and achieved unanimity on the Patriot Act. Then the bill just disappeared. And we had a new several-hundred-page bill revealed from the Rules Committee” that had to be voted on the next day, before most members of Congress even had a chance to read it, said Nadler.

None of the Republicans at today’s hearing challenged the Democratic chairmen’s version of events.