Electing Minorities- CQR

7/25/2019 Electing Minorities- CQR

1/21

Help| Logout

Search by keyword...

Advanced Search

!"#$"! &'((")*+

1923 - present

!"#$ %&"'($ *"+,-( %&"'($ &$+"&*( .(,/0 -1& 2,%&3&,3/ 3--"./* 3%".*

Email a link back to... Print... Save to Favorite Documents CiteNow!

FULL REPORT

Introduction

Overview

Background

Current Situation

Outlook

Pro/Con

Chronology

Short Features

Bibliography

The Next Step

Footnotes

Comments

Permissions

",-./012 (01340/0-5 August 12, 1994 Volume 4, Issue 30Are new methods needed to help minorities get elected?

By Nadine Cohodas

Introduction

More minorities than ever before have won congressional office in recent years, thanks in large

part to the creation of electoral districts with majorities of minority voters. Now a Supreme Court

decision has imperiled such districts in five Southern states, spawning litigation that could diminish

previous gains. Civil rights lawyers contend that requiring states to draw majority-minority districts

in their legislative maps is an appropriate remedy for past voting discrimination. White plaintiffs who

have challenged these maps say their rights are being denied. Some critics want to move away

from the traditional single-member, winner-take-all voting schemes that breed such disputes and

toward the proportional representation plans used in many countries overseas. Others dismiss

such approaches as social engineering.

Go to top

Overview

Victory has been sweet -- but shaky -- for Reps. Melvin Watt and Eva Clayton.

layton.

On June 28, 1993, barely six months after they celebrated becoming North Carolina's first black

members of Congress in 90 years, the U.S. Supreme Court threatened to make them put the

champagne corks back in the bottles. Ruling 5-4 in Shaw v. Reno, the court reinstated a lawsuit

challenging the electoral map that created their two oddly shaped majority-black districts.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, said that North Carolina appeared to have

engaged in racial gerrymandering. Such map-drawing, she wrote, even for remedial purposes maybalkanize us into competing racial factions. In order for the districts to stand, O'Connor said, North

Carolina would have to show that the map was not drawn for a racial purpose, or if it was, that the

map was narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest.

This spring, the trial on the challenged map took place before a special three-judge federal panel in

Raleigh, and on Aug. 1 Watt and Clayton, both Democrats, received some good news.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges ruled that while North Carolina may have indeed undertaken a racial

gerrymander, we nonetheless conclude that the plan passes constitutional muster because it is

narrowly tailored to further the state's compelling interest in complying with the 1965 Voting Rights

Act.

Therefore, the panel added, the plan did not violate the constitutional rights of the white plaintiffs

who had attacked the state's redistricting map. They had claimed that their right to equal protection,

guaranteed in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, had been violated in order to help

ensure the election of black members of Congress.

I'm very excited about the decision, says Watt, whose sinewy 12th District drew the most

attention. He adds that he was not surprised by the outcome because he had been confident ofthe rationale the state had used to create the electoral map.

The decision is virtually certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and whether North

Carolina's map ultimately will pass muster remains an open question. (See At Issue, p. 713.)

After the 1990 Census, the state had drawn the new congressional district map under pressure

from the U.S. Justice Department, which is charged with enforcing the Voting Rights Act.

Section 5 of the law requires states with a history of discrimination against minorities to get

approval for election law changes -- known as preclearance -- from the Justice Department, and

North Carolina fell under the act's coverage.

The subject of several contentious lawsuits over the last quarter- century, the Voting Rights Act has

6++7" *!#&8"!456 &789:7; &7


2/21

been interpreted to require states with sizable black populations to create electoral districts that

give blacks a chance to elect a representative of their choosing -- by inference a black. Watt's

district is 56.6 percent black; Clayton's is 57.3 percent black.

The law has been widely credited with helping minorities win elections. At the end of 1993, nearly

8,000 blacks and more than 5,100 Hispanics held public office in the United States. (See charts,

pp. 708,710.)

The Shaw decision immediately imperiled the two majority-minority North Carolina districts and

threatened similar districts in several other Southern states. Shortly after the decision, lawsuits

were filed challenging majority-minority districts in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas.

The high court decision also served to reignite a debate about race and electoral politics that was

sparked by the failed nomination last year of civil rights lawyer Lani Guinier as assistant attorney

general for civil rights. Key elements in this debate are the undisputed history of discrimination

against blacks and other minorities in some states and localities, the fact of racial-bloc voting in

racially mixed populations and the question of whether ethnic representation on governmental

bodies is an appropriate goal, and if so, how it should be accomplished.

Guinier, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, has written extensively about

race and politics, criticizing single- member districting and winner-take-all voting. She believes

different electoral approaches are needed to improve minorities' political representation and

influence.

Representing a geographically and socially isolated constituency in a radically polarized

environment, she wrote in The Triumph of Tokenism, an essay, blacks elected from single-

member districts have little control over policy choices made by their white counterparts. Thus,

although it ensures more representatives, district-based black electoral success may not

necessarily result in more responsive government.

During Guinier's brief nomination, detractors blasted her as a quota queen whose ideas were well

out of the mainstream of the current dialogue on race. One influential Republican, Sen. Orrin G.

Hatch, R-Utah, called her views frightening to many, even in the civil rights community.

President Clinton subsequently withdrew her nomination June 3, 1993, saying he was troubled by

some of the views expressed in her writings and that, I cannot fight a battle that I know is divisive .

. . if I do not believe in the ground of the battle.

Guinier maintained that her ideas had been distorted and her writings taken out of context.

Shaw v. Reno brought new attention to her views and also gave new currency to voting proposals

other academics and voting-rights specialists have been discussing. That interest only increased

when, a year after the Shaw decision, the Supreme Court spoke again on voting rights. One case

involved legislative districting in Florida, the other alleged dilution of minority votes on a county

commission in Georgia.

On June 30, 1994, the last day of the term, the court upheld the Florida districting plan, which

provided minorities with the chance to elect several state representatives. However, in the case,Johnson v. De Grandy, the justices declined to support a plan drawn by a lower court that would

have provided even more minority representation.

In the other case, Holder v. Hall, the court ruled that the Voting Rights Act did not require Bleckley

County in Georgia to expand its one-member county commission to give black residents a chance

to win election to the government. Although blacks make up 22 percent of the county, they have

never elected a commissioner.

As states with significant minority populations grapple with the thorny legal and political matters

raised by the high court decisions, these are some of the central questions being raised in the

debate:

Is proportional representation of minorities a legitimate goal?

The term proportional representation generally refers to representation in Congress or other

elected bodies based on the proportion of a minority group in the general population. But that can

mean different things to different people depending on the context.

If considered in the context of single-member districts, proportional representation looks to manylike a quota because it so often can require what some consider extreme measures to guarantee

that all segments of a community are represented. If the black population of a state is, say, 33

percent, under a strict notion of proportional representation one-third of the members of the state's

congressional delegation would have to be black. Assuming that voters voted in racial blocs, an

electoral map would have to be drawn with one-third of the districts majority-black to guarantee this

result.

But in a different voting scheme, such as a large, multi-member district, proportional representation

is seen by many voting-rights specialists as more egalitarian because voters have a wider choice of

candidates. Instead of casting a ballot for only one candidate, as in a single-member district, voters

in a multi-member district would have a better chance to elect at least one of their chosen

candidates.

Electing Minorities: CQR http://library.cqpress.com.ccl.idm.oclc.org/cqresearcher/docu

of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


3/21

The problem, says Clint Bolick, litigation director of the Institute for Justice, a conservative public

interest law center, is that in the existing political terrain, all congressional elections and all but a

handful of other contests are based on single-member districts and winner-take-all outcomes.

Therefore, proportional representation operates as a ceiling, not a floor, Bolick adds, preventing

minority candidates from flourishing outside particular boundaries. It also stifles healthy political

competition, Bolick asserts, because whites and blacks, with their own essentially safe districts,

don't have to compete for each other's votes.

Watt takes exception to the notion that majority-black districts are necessarily safe. In his district,

he notes, the black voting-age population is around 53 percent. You don't take a 53 percent district

and guarantee a black person they are going to get elected, he says.

Robinson Everett, a plaintiff in the Shaw case and also one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, dislikes

proportional representation. While I think it is good to encourage diversity, I would not subscribe to

that as a legitimate goal in and of itself, he says. I think that the notion that only a black can

represent the interests of blacks is erroneous and that whites can only represent whites is

erroneous.

To Frank Parker, a professor at the District of Columbia School of Law, the proportional

representation debate is a diversion, a red herring. We don't say anywhere that if you don't have

proportional representation it is a violation of the Voting Rights Act, says Parker, author of Black

Votes Count, a 1990 book about Mississippi voting-rights litigation.

He notes that Section 2 of the act, which he helped revise in 1982, bars discriminatory voting

schemes nationwide. The revisions note specifically that nothing in this section establishes a right

to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the

population.

In other words, Parker argues, majority-minority districts are not based on proportional

representation. They are simply a remedy for exclusion from the political process.

Vanderbilt University law Professor James Blumstein counters that such remedies go too far. No

one has a right to be in a particular district, he says, adding that voters are only guaranteed the

right not to be purposefully disadvantaged.

Justice David H. Souter, who had dissented in the Shaw case, did not specifically endorse

proportional representation in his majority opinion in the Florida case, but he noted the dual

importance of the proportion of minority representatives as well as the proportion of minorities in

the relevant voting-age population when districting disputes arise.

In Johnson, the court found that Hispanics were adequately represented under the state

Legislature's plan. Treating equal political opportunity as the focus of the inquiry, wrote Souter,

we do not see how these district lines, apparently providing political effectiveness in proportion to

voting-age numbers, deny equal political opportunity to Hispanics.

It is the often-acrimonious debate over line-drawing and percentages that has prompted Guinier

and others interested in voting rights to propose different electoral alternatives to achieve more

diverse representation. Among the leaders in such efforts is the two- year-old Center for Voting and

Democracy.

When these voting rights experts talk about proportional representation, says center Director

Robert Richie, they do so outside the context of single-member districts. Indeed, the center

presented a plan in the North Carolina case that would have divided the state into three large multi-

member districts and provided a revised voting scheme. In the center of the state, the plan

proposed a district with five representatives. Each voter in the district would have five votes. Under

a system known as cumulative voting, voters could cast all five votes for one candidate or they

could divide their votes among the candidates. The five candidates with the most votes would win.

Members of minority groups could give their votes to one candidate and thereby increase the

likelihood of that candidate's election.

This has an enormous number of advantages, says Douglas J. Amy, a political science professor

at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Mass., and author of the 1993 book Real Choices/New

Voices: The Case for Proportional Representation in the United States. It doesn't require the

drawing of these special districts that people have been complaining about.

Such a system, Amy adds, doesn't assume anything about how people want to be represented. It

doesn't assume that blacks want to be represented by blacks or whites represented by whites. It

simply allows individuals to vote any way they feel depending on what criteria are important tothem. Some may vote on the basis of race, some on the basis of gender, some on the basis of

certain partisan considerations.

Bolick remains dubious of such schemes, even if they depart from the single-member district

model. Dismissing the plans as social engineering, Bolick rejects the premise that blacks,

Hispanics or any other ethnic groups have interests different from other voters based on their

racial identity. The entire enterprise of trying to maximize racial strength in voting contexts is to me

inherently divisive and counterproductive, he says, adding that cumulative voting schemes could

favor radicals of any sort because they would stir the most passions and make it difficult for

centrists to win election.

Some academics agree. Proportional representation makes it more likely that deputies from the


of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


4/21

one-issue outskirts of political life will fill the legislatures, Daniel D. Polsby and Robert D. Popper

wrote recently in the Michigan Law Review. Those elected, they said, would likely face quite a

challenge . . . to create and implement a common agenda of governance. They warned that a

legislature could disintegrate into a cafeteria-style of concessions to various factions that make up

the governing coalition.

Even if a proportional-representation scheme gained support, one large hurdle prevents it from

working at the congressional level -- a law passed by Congress in 1967 requiring states with more

than one House member to use single-member districts. Ironically, lawmakers warned at the time

that the use of at-large elections in Southern states could dilute the strength of the black vote.

Cumulative voting has been tried in local jurisdictions, however. Most recently, a federal judgeordered at-large elections with cumulative voting for county commission elections in Maryland's

Worcester County. Black residents, who make up 21 percent of the population but who have never

won countywide office, had challenged the existing district system. The case is on appeal.

Should states still be allowed to draw congressional districts that virtually ensure the election of

minorities?

Vanderbilt's Blumstein believes that the Shaw case will make majority-minority congressional

districts a threatened species. The decision, he says, was not just about a district that looks

strange but rather about a racial motive for creating a district. The goal should not be to recognize

racial polarization, he adds, but to take appropriate steps that can build cross-racial coalitions.

Law Professor Parker contends that majority-minority districting is still appropriate under the Voting

Rights Act. Where districts are drawn that dilute minorities' electoral strength, he says, then lines

should be redrawn to give minorities an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

Watt believes his situation illustrates the need for majority- minority districts. Citing the 30 percent

of the white population that he says won't support a black candidate, Watt believes the only way to

counter their bloc voting is by creating a district that gives a black a realistic chance to win.

Brenda Wright, director of the voting rights project of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, sees

a double standard operating. Majority-minority districts, she says, are denounced as 'segregated'

while majority-white election districts that elect white representatives are considered 'colorblind.'

Moreover, Wright says, majority-minority districts are said to foster racial polarization, suggesting

that the cause of racial unity is better served by the all-white governing bodies that we had for so

long, when all election districts were majority white.

Once minorities are elected, Wright adds, they can more easily work to build the cross-racial

coalitions described by Blumstein. She cites the case of Mike Espy, who was Mississippi's first

black representative this century before becoming secretary of Agriculture in 1993. Espy, a

Democrat, was initially elected from a majority-black district, receiving only 10 percent of the white

vote. But after proving that he could represent [all] the people of his district, his share of the white

vote increased in subsequent elections, Wright says.

Voting-rights advocates say racial-bloc voting remains a difficult problem in electing minorities. I

found that under racially polarized conditions, white voters are reluctant to support a black

candidate -- even if he possesses identical credentials, background and experience to a whitecandidate, Keith Reeves recently wrote in a doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan. In

Southern congressional districts, Reeves adds in an interview, We can assume race is always a

factor.

Charles Cooper, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, agrees that

racial-bloc voting is one of the arguments [for majority-minority districting] that has force and

appeal. But it is just not enough. I have a problem with drawing lines in order to ensure a racial

result, adds Cooper, who has represented several state and local governments in voting-rights

challenges.

Richard Samp, general counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation, a public-interest law firm,

shares Cooper's view. As bad as the disease may be, the cure is worse, he says. To the extent

we are trying to get a colorblind society, we are going in the wrong direction.

Guinier believes that other options are preferable to majority- minority districting, but like Parker

and Wright she agrees that it is a remedy, if an imperfect one. Any districting reflects the social

engineering that Bolick complained of, Guinier says. Districting is about a group of government

individuals, incumbent politicians, drawing lines to determine who gets represented. It is completely

arbitrary.

That view is shared by Penda Hair, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational

Fund who helped try the Texas districting challenge. Referring to the several state congressional

maps under attack, Hair says, In none of these cases was the shape of the district determined by

race. It was determined by political factors, mostly incumbent protection.

She contends that in each of the cases more compact majority- minority districts could have been

created -- but weren't -- because they would have imperiled sitting members of Congress.

Like Guinier, Mount Holyoke's Amy favors a shift from single- member districts to the kind of multi-

member electoral scheme suggested for North Carolina. But if we stick with single-member

districts, he says, I do support majority-minority districts because they are the only way to get fair


of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


5/21

representation for minorities. Otherwise, he adds, blacks will be submerged in white-majority

districts, and in states like North Carolina there will be no minority representation in Congress.

Cooper finds this unduly pessimistic. It is certainly true that individuals, white and black, have

voted on the basis of race, he says. But over time, that will abate. Fair and neutral voting

procedures will have an effect, though not as quickly as some minorities want. But it seems the

race-neutral route will enormously reduce the level of racial hostility that has been generated over

map drawing.

Should the federal government relax enforcement of the Voting Rights Act?

The Voting Rights Act still exists and is being enforced and is still necessary, says Steven

Rosenbaum, head of the Justice Department's voting-rights section.

Even those who part company on districting issues agree there is still the need for effective voting-

rights enforcement. But they disagree over what constitutes effective and appropriate action. The

government should not relax its enforcement, says Vanderbilt's Blumstein, but it should enforce

the law according to court decisions.

In the North Carolina case, he says, the Justice Department in the Bush administration acted in a

lawless manner because it pressured North Carolina to draw a congressional district map with two

majority- black districts. He believes it is a misreading of the Voting Rights Act to require the

drawing of majority-minority districts every time it is technically possible.

Samp shares that view, charging the Bush administration's Justice Department with a

misinterpretation of the Voting Rights Act. Some critics said the department was being

hypocritical, that they were doing this to help Republicans by getting safe GOP districts, Samp

adds. Basically, they were being carried away by the notion that, If you can draw any kind of

majority-minority district, then you must.

Samp and Blumstein argue that the relevant standard is whether or not a new districting map puts

minorities in a worse position than they currently are in.

But the lawyers who represent minority plaintiffs contend that this interpretation is erroneous and

point to the department's own guidelines, put into effect in 1987, during the second administration

of President Ronald Reagan. The regulations essentially require that if legislatures in states with

racially polarized voting fail to create majority-black districts wherever they can be drawn, the

Justice Department will object to that plan.

Rosenbaum put it this way: Even if a proposed election-law change is not retrogressive but

nevertheless is enacted with a discriminatory purpose, that is still a central component of Section 5

[the preclearance requirement]. We make an intense and fact-specific appraisal for each

redistricting plan that we review.

Voting-rights specialist Wright says that hearings over the revisions of the law in 1982 provided

compelling testimony that merely striking down formal barriers to registration and voting would

never permit minorities to achieve full participation in the political life of this country. Hence, more

dramatic remedies, such as majority-minority districting, are required, she says.

Adds Parker, the primary function of the Voting Rights Act is to protect minorities from methods of

election that deny them the opportunity to elect their preferred candidate to office. There is noindication of any letup in that problem.

Cooper also agrees that enforcement of the voting act should not be relaxed. But he says the Shaw

decision makes clear that there should be fewer occasions to enforce it. The Supreme Court's

recent Florida and Georgia decisions, while not about congressional districting, indicate that the

court is still unwilling to endorse some of the more exotic and extreme theories of voting rights

that, in his view, virtually guarantee electoral victories.

Go to top

*On July 25, a panel of three federal judges imposed a new congressional district map for

Louisiana that has only one majority-black district. The judges ordered the court-drawn map after

rejecting for the second time a district map containing two black-majority districts (see p. 712). The

judges had ruled July 22 that the second map, like the first, also represented unconstitutional racial

gerrymandering. Four Louisiana voters -- two whites, one black and one of Asian descent -- had

challenged the new districts.

Background

The tensions in the nation's biracial electorate go back to the aftermath of the Civil War. Northern-

enforced Reconstruction had thrust laws upon the Southern states that resulted in the election of

hundreds of former slaves to public office. The existence of a large black voting population did not

sit well with many Southern whites, and by 1880, with Northern interest in policing the South on the

wane, white-supremacist groups such as the White League in Louisiana, the White Line in

Mississippi and the White Man's Party in Alabama had formed to wrest political power from blacks

by intimidation and outright violence.

Southern blacks were deprived of political power by whites who prevented black voters from

reaching the polls, stuffed ballot boxes or engaged in other electoral fraud. Between 1875 and

1901, for example, 107 of the 183 contested elections in the House of Representatives were from


of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


6/21

12 Southern states.

But such egregious misdeeds troubled many white leaders throughout the region. It is true that we

win these elections, editorialized a Louisiana paper, but at a heavy cost, and by the use of

methods repugnant to our idea of political honesty and which must, in time, demoralize the people

of Louisiana. And a politician in Virginia complained that, Cheating at elections is demoralizing

our whole people.

Inevitably, blacks were disfranchised and whites returned to unquestioned political power.

Mississippi, the state with the second- largest black population, led the way. In 1890, the state

constitution was rewritten to include literacy tests and property requirements that effectively denied

the ballot to most black voters.

South Carolina followed suit in 1895, Louisiana in 1898, North Carolina in 1900, Alabama and

Virginia in 1901 and Georgia in 1908. Florida, Arkansas and Texas, meanwhile, disfranchised many

black voters by enacting poll taxes and other devices.

These efforts were highly successful; the laws would endure for more than a half-century, and no

Southern black would be elected to federal office for 70 years.

Challenging the White Primary

By forcing Reconstruction on the South, Northern Republicans made the GOP anathema to

Southerners. Thus, anyone who aspired to a political career aligned himself with the Democratic

Party. This made primaries the critical contest; November elections simply ratified the primary

result. Shut out of the Democratic Party, Southern blacks were denied the opportunity to vote even

though the 15th Amendment to the Constitution mandated that the right of citizens of the United

States shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account race, color

or previous condition of servitude.

In a challenge to the white primary system, a black Texan sued the Democratic Party. But the

Supreme Court eventually ruled in Grovey v. Texas in 1934 that a political party was a private

association and could set whatever membership rules it wanted.

A few years later, another black Texan, this time represented by NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall,

again challenged white primaries. On April 3, 1944, the Supreme Court, in Smith v. Allwright,

reversed the previous decision. Ruling 8-1, the court said that primary elections in Texas were

conducted by the Democratic Party under state statutory authority. Hence, the court said, it became

an agency of the state and was thus forbidden from discriminating against citizens in their right to

vote.

In the wake of the decision, Georgia Gov. Ellis Arnall, perhaps the most moderate politician in the

region, declared the white primary dead. But other Southern political leaders tried to get around the

decision.

The reaction was perhaps most extreme in South Carolina, where the governor called the

legislature back into session to repeal all primary laws in an effort to make the Democratic Party a

completely private entity. Some 150 laws were stripped from the books in the short session,

prompting Newsweek to label the state legislators killbillies.

Though it took two separate lawsuits in South Carolina, the effort by white political leaders to keep

blacks from voting ultimately failed; blacks voted in the August 1948 primary in substantial numbers

for the first time in more than 50 years.

Anti-Poll-Tax Drive

While black leaders were pursuing legal remedies, there was movement in Congress to repeal the

poll tax -- an effort that would ultimately prove unsuccessful despite House passage of the measure

on five separate occasions over a period of years. The stumbling block was always the Senate,

where Southerners, led by Georgia Democrat Richard B. Russell, held considerable power.

What happened in 1948 was typical. On April 28, after the House passed an anti-poll-tax bill, a

Senate committee sent its version of the legislation to the full Senate. But Senate debate did not

begin until July 29. Six days later, senators voted to adjourn, killing the bill.

This effort to enfranchise Southern black voters had failed despite President Harry S Truman's

support. On Feb. 2, 1948, he had sent a special message to Congress calling for a number of civil

rights initiatives, including more protections for the right to vote. Indeed, later in the year hecampaigned for election on a party platform containing the party's strongest civil rights language to

date. It was so strong it prompted a walkout by some Southern delegates from the party's

convention in Philadelphia and led to a third-party challenge from Southerners who called

themselves States' Rights Democrats -- the Dixiecrats.

When the Truman administration ended in 1953, black Southerners still faced numerous barriers to

voting. The 1944 Smith decision had helped, but much more was needed.

Civil Rights Bills

Although President Dwight D. Eisenhower invariably invoked civil rights in his annual State of the


of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


7/21

Union addresses, he did not request legislation until 1956. Then he proposed new laws to protect

voting rights, including a civil rights commission to investigate charges that in some localities . . .

Negro citizens are being deprived of their right to vote and are likewise being subjected to

unwarranted economic pressure.

After a year of discussion, Congress agreed on legislation that was somewhat pared down from the

bill Eisenhower and civil rights activists had wanted. In fact, the new law, approved Aug. 29, 1957,

was considered something of a victory for Southern members. Although they had been unable to

muster enough votes to kill the bill, Southerners nonetheless had cut some of the muscle out --

mainly a section that would have given the attorney general broad authority to file lawsuits for

deprivation of civil rights.

The law's voting rights section only authorized the attorney general to seek an injunction when

individuals were deprived or about to be deprived of their right to vote. And it gave federal district

judges authority to hear such cases. But it soon became clear that the law was incapable of tearing

down the voting barriers Southern blacks still faced.

Three years later, Congress took up another civil rights bill, one with a more ambitious voting-rights

section.

The fledgling Civil Rights Commission had provided compelling evidence of the disparity between

white and black voters. In Alabama, for example, 63.6 percent of the voting-age whites were

registered to vote in 1960 compared with 13.7 percent of the blacks; in North Carolina, it was 92.8

percent of the voting-age whites vs. 38.2 percent of the blacks; and in Mississippi, only 6.7 percent

of the eligible black voters were registered; (the percentage of registered whites was not available).

Eisenhower had sent a civil rights bill to Congress early in 1959, but there was little action on it.

Pressure to go forward increased early in 1960, and at the end of January the Justice Department

announced that the administration would add a new voting-rights section to the measure that would

allow court-appointed referees to help blacks register and vote.

After nearly two months of debate and procedural jousting, a bill was finally enacted. But once

again, Southern lawmakers forced changes that made the new law, in the view of civil rights

leaders, too cumbersome to be effective.

The law's complicated procedures for registering black voters required the attorney general to first

win a civil suit for deprivation of civil rights. That enabled the attorney general to return to court to

seek a separate finding of discrimination against potential black voters in the community. Only then

could any black apply to the court for an order declaring that he was a qualified voter. State officials

then would be required to permit that individual to vote.

Thurgood Marshall, then head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, called the new

law a fraud, and NAACP chief Roy Wilkins complained that A Negro has to pass through more

checkpoints and more officials than he would if he were trying to get the U.S. gold reserves in Fort

Knox.

Voting Rights Act

John F. Kennedy's narrow victory over Richard M. Nixon in the 1960 presidential election, with

crucial help from Southern black voters, increased pressure on the new Democratic administration

to move on civil rights. Black leaders were growing impatient with Kennedy's seeming

recalcitrance. But the murder in 1963 of Mississippi civil rights leader Medgar Evers prompted him

to action. The assassination of Kennedy himself then lent even more impetus to these efforts.

Blending his considerable political skills with poignant memories of his youthful predecessor,

President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, which opened

parks, restaurants, hotels and other public accommodations to all Americans. Then, in 1965, he

turned to voting rights.

But civil rights activists had gotten there first. Led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., they were

seeking to register voters in Dallas County, Ala., where only 2.1 percent of the eligible blacks were

on the rolls.

To dramatize the problem, the prospective voters wanted to march from Selma, the county seat, to

Montgomery, the state capital. On March 7 they set off. Six blocks into the 50-mile trek, the

demonstrators were confronted by local police, state troopers and unfriendly white citizens. As the

marchers tried to retreat, they were clubbed and tear-gassed -- the debacle captured by thenational news media.

Eight days later, in a televised speech to a joint session of Congress, Johnson vowed to present

lawmakers with a tough, new voting rights bill. Adopting the slogan of the civil rights movement, he

promised, We shall overcome.

The Senate began work on the new voting rights bill in April, passing it in August. The key

provisions authorized federal supervision of voter registration in states, cities and counties that had

used voter-qualification tests before the November 1964 elections and where fewer than 50

percent of the voting-age residents had participated in the presidential election.


of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


8/21

The legislation also suspended the use of literacy tests in selected Southern states and in

scattered counties elsewhere, and it required Justice Department approval before these states and

counties could change election procedures or laws -- the Section 5 preclearance requirement,

which would be key to enforcement. Despite attacks by Southern opponents, these critical

provisions survived.

The House passed its version of the legislation July 9, and three weeks later, after differences in

the House and Senate measures were resolved, Congress approved the legislation and sent it to

the president. On Aug. 6, Johnson signed the act. In a nationally televised ceremony broadcast

from the imposing second-floor Rotunda of the Capitol, he noted that blacks had come to the

United States in darkness and they came in chains. And today we strike away the last major

shackle of those fierce, ancient bonds.

Section 5 of the new law, the enforcement provisions, would have to be renewed by Congress after

five years. Another part of the law, Section 2, barred the adoption of any elections or procedures

that would deny or hamper the right to vote. Unlike Section 5, it was permanent and covered all

states and political subdivisions.

The Justice Department swung into action following passage of the act. On Aug. 7, it sued to

eliminate Mississippi's poll tax. Similar actions were taken three days later against Alabama, Texas

and Virginia. Also on Aug. 10, the department suspended literacy tests and similar qualification

devices in Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, North

Carolina and one county in Arizona.

Two days later, Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach named the first group of Southern

counties and parishes where federal examiners would process voter-registration applications.

On Aug. 25, Johnson announced that in the first 19 days under the new law, examiners had

registered 27,385 blacks in three Southern states. In Selma, on Aug. 14 alone, 381 blacks were put

on the rolls -- more than all the black registrants in the previous 60 years. By November, the

number would rise to nearly 8,000.

South Carolina officials had quickly challenged the Voting Rights Act, but on March 7, 1966, the

Supreme Court upheld the new law. The justices ruled that Congress had properly exercised its

authority to enforce the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which empowered Congress to

enforce the right to vote by appropriate legislation.

For the next quarter-century, the voting law inspired dozens of lawsuits over voting rights, forever

changing Southern politics. As black registration soared, and blacks were elected to local and state

offices, white politicians learned to tailor their campaign pitches to an integrated electorate.

Supreme Court Tests

In 1968, in one of the first important cases testing the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court upheld

Section 5's authority over two proposed changes in local election procedures: changing from

districtwide elections to at-large elections, and from elected to appointed county superintendents of

education. The court's ruling consolidated cases from Mississippi and Virginia, where state officials

had contended that such electoral decisions were not covered by the Voting Rights Act.

Five years later, the court again addressed at-large elections, ruling in a Texas case, White v.Regester, that so-called vote dilution violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The

court said that multi-member districts were not automatically unconstitutional but could violate the

14th Amendment if they were used invidiously to cancel out or minimize the voting strength of

racial groups.

To prove a claim of vote dilution, those challenging at-large voting must show that the political

processes leading to nomination or election are not equally open to participation by those classes

of citizens protected by the Voting Rights Act. The factors to be considered could include the extent

of any history of official discrimination, the extent of racially polarized voting and the size of election

districts.

Two years after White, in 1975, the Supreme Court further refined its views on enforcement in Beer

v. United States. The issue was whether a New Orleans re-apportionment plan providing for two

majority-black districts, where there had been none, was acceptable even though a differently

drawn map could have provided the chance for election of more black City Council members. The

justices ruled that an electoral plan from a covered jurisdiction was acceptable under the law as

long as there was no retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective

exercise of the electoral franchise.

The decision was unpopular with voting-rights activists, who believed that jurisdictions should have

been required to maximize opportunities for minority electoral success, not merely to make a bad

situation somewhat better.

By the mid-1970s, the law's impact was clear. In Alabama, for example, black voter registration had

risen from 23 percent of those eligible in 1964 to 58.1 percent in 1976; in Mississippi during those

12 years, it had gone from 6.7 percent to 67.4 percent.

Figures for black elected officials tell a similar story. In 1970, according to the Joint Center for

Political and Economic Studies, 1,469 blacks held office across the nation, including 86 in

Alabama, 81 in Mississippi, 62 in North Carolina, 40 in Georgia and 38 in South Carolina. By 1975,


of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


9/21

there were 3,503 black officeholders, and the number had at least doubled in the Southern states.

The total included two members of Congress, Democrats Andrew J. Young from Atlanta, Ga., and

Harold E. Ford, from Memphis, Tenn.

Congress Compromises

In 1980, the Supreme Court continued its key role in interpreting the Voting Rights Act and also set

the stage for a difficult fight looming two years away. Ruling in Mobile v. Bolden, the court held that

intent to discriminate had to be shown for there to have been a violation of Section 2 of the act --

the permanent provision covering the entire nation.

Civil rights lawyers complained that the court had misinterpreted the voting law, setting a standardof proof that was virtually impossible to meet. They vowed to reverse the decision in 1982, when

renewal of the act's Section 5 enforcement provisions would be decided.

The House-passed renewal bill, actually completed in 1981, overturned the Mobile decision by

revising Section 2 to say that a violation of the law could be proved by showing that an election

procedure results in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote.

In the Senate, a group led by Orrin Hatch strongly opposed the House approach and argued for

retention of the intent standard spelled out by the Supreme Court. After days of hearings and

weeks of backroom negotiations, Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Judiciary

Committee reached a compromise. The results test inserted by the House would be kept, but

language would be added based on the 1973 White v. Regester decision, which required a court to

look at the totality of the circumstances before determining whether a violation existed.

The compromise, which was ultimately approved by Congress, also stipulated that minority groups

did not have a right to proportional representation and that lack of proportional representation was

only one circumstance a court could consider in a voting-rights case.

Four years later, in 1986, the compromise got its first test at the Supreme Court. In Thornburg v.Gingles (pronounced Jingles), the court, upholding the new Section 2 language, set out the

criteria to prove a violation under this provision. The key elements were whether a majority-minority

district could be created, whether minority voters tended to vote for particular candidates and

whether minority- preferred candidates are usually defeated by white-bloc voting. The court

rejected the argument that once one or more black candidates have been elected from a

challenged district, the district is immune from challenge under the Voting Rights Act.

Barely five months after the Gingles decision, Mike Espy became the first black elected to

Congress from Mississippi in more than a century, bringing to four the number of black

congressmen from Southern states.

The 1990 Census required the redrawing of electoral districts, and black political leaders in the

South, in particular, hoped for more electoral success. Despite some contentious battles in the

states, majority-black districts were drawn across the South, and in Alabama, Florida, North

Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia blacks were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for

the first time this century. In addition, a black woman, Democrat Carol Mosely-Braun, was elected

to the U.S. Senate from Illinois. (See table, p. 700.)

In North Carolina and Florida, as well as in Louisiana, which had previously elected a black to

Congress, the majority-minority districts had unusual shapes, not only to give black candidates a

good chance at winning but also, some observers said, to protect white incumbents in their

districts. The stage was set for the high court's Shaw v. Reno decision.

Go to top

*The others, all Democrats, were John Lewis (Georgia), Harold E. Ford (Tennessee) and Mickey

Leland (Texas), who died in 1989.

Current Situation

Since Shaw, there have been trials on four state districting maps and three court decisions -- two of

them coming from Louisiana, the first state to provide a post-Shaw judicial opinion on such issues.

On Dec. 28, 1993, a special three-judge federal panel had ruled that the districting plan in general

and the 4th District in particular were not narrowly tailored to further any compelling governmental

interest, as Shaw had required. Therefore, the plaintiff's right to equal protection under the law had

been violated, the court said, and the districting plan was declared null and void.

To several voting-rights specialists, the decision suggested that, at least in the eyes of the federal

judges in Louisiana, any district drawn with a majority-minority population could be constitutionally

suspect, not just those that looked funny.

Allan J. Lichtman, a history professor at American University, finds this view troubling because it

ignores the 14th Amendment's role in safeguarding minority rights. Thus is history inverted, he

asserted, because individuals intended to be protected by the 14th Amendment now can be

harmed by this interpretation of it.

But those dubious about race-based districting applauded the opinion as an appropriate

interpretation of Shaw, including Everett, the plaintiff's lawyer in Shaw, and Cooper, the former

Justice department official. I think the judges made it clear that there was overreaching by the


of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


10/21

Justice Department, Everett says, referring to the Louisiana decision.

This past spring, the Louisiana Legislature redrew the map, making the 4th District more compact.

Blacks, who had been 63 percent of the old district, would be 55 percent of the new 4th. The

Justice Department approved the new map in June.

Responding to an appeal, the Supreme Court on June 27 voided the three-judge panel's decision

on the old 4th District and sent the case back to Louisiana for consideration in light of the new

district map.

After a trial on the new map, the court on July 22 again rejected the districting plan as an

unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Three days later, the court imposed a new congressional map

with only one majority-black district. Louisiana's attorney general, Democrat Richard P. Ieyoub, hasasked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the imposition of the new map, pending an appeal.

The trial on the Texas districting map was heard from June 27 to July 1, and a decision is expected

in late summer. The trial on the Georgia challenge was completed July 25. No date has been set

for a trial on the Florida congressional district map, but a federal court has ruled that the upcoming

1994 elections will proceed under the current redistricting plan.

The North Carolina ruling Aug. 1 was the latest development, with a special three-judge federal

panel deciding 2-1 that the state's districting plan was constitutional because it was narrowly

tailored to further the state's compelling interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act. Like the

Louisiana decision, this ruling is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Justice Department has been defending the redistricting plans in the challenged states. Deval

Patrick, head of the Civil Rights Division, announced in the spring that he had created a Voting

Rights Protection Task Force to handle any similar voting-rights claims.

And in June, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, perceiving threats to black electoral gains, went on a 10-day

bus tour from Texas to Virginia to talk about the Shaw decision and its implications for the South.

Funded by Jackson's Rainbow Coalition and supported by the Democratic National Committee, thetour was intended not only to educate voters about the case but also to build support for possible

congressional action to reverse rulings that minority communities consider adverse.

However, it is not clear just what Congress could do to overrule Shaw, if it were so inclined. As law

Professor Parker noted, the case was a constitutional claim decided under the Equal Protection

Clause of the 14th Amendment. It was not a matter of statutory interpretation that could be dealt

with by rewriting the Voting Rights Act.

Go to top

Outlook

Lawyers active in voting rights believe more litigation is in the offing, and that means that the future

of majority-minority districting will rest in judicial hands. They also agreed that the high court's two

most recent voting decisions -- in Florida and Georgia -- were relatively narrow (see p. 700), though

attorneys who represent minorities said they feared the cases could be used as roadmaps for

governmental bodies looking for ways to dilute minority voting strength but still avoid violating the

Voting Rights Act.

Cooper, who has represented several governmental bodies in voting- rights challenges, considers

Shaw a clear and present danger to racial gerrymandering. Thus, he says, it could be used for

challenging any electoral map that looks like it was drawn for racial reasons.

According to Parker, Shaw could affect not just congressional districting but other electoral maps

as well, such as those for state legislatures, county commissions and city councils. There's no limit

to the number of the lawsuits that can be filed, he says. What's bizarrely shaped was not defined

in the Supreme Court decision.

But Vanderbilt's Blumstein contends that Shaw was not about weird districts but about the use of

race to draw districts. The shape of the district, in his view, is just evidence that race was a

motivating factor in the creation of the electoral map.

Rosenbaum, the Justice Department's voting-rights chief, believes that some post-Shaw decisions

indicate that the ruling may be more limited than originally thought. He cites a recent decision in

Mississippi, where a three-judge court declined to throw out a districting map for the Board of

Supervisors election in Calhoun County. Blacks had sought a new districting plan, but the county

had contended that would be seen as racial gerrymandering and violating Shaw. The court rejectedthat reasoning. The same result came in a similar case involving a districting map for the

Bridgeport, Conn., City Council.

Whatever the court interpretations, voting-rights specialist Wright says governmental bodies are

becoming more recalcitrant about the types of districting plans they will draw. After Shaw, she

notes, the attitude seems to be how much they think they can get away with.

As evidence, she points to the greater willingness to challenge Justice Department objections

about possible racial discrimination in districting plans. Where in the past these objections would

have been accepted and dealt with, she says, jurisdictions are now more ready to go to court to

fight the department's rulings.

And that means more lawsuits and more judicial decisions that will further define the 1965 law.


0 of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


11/21

Nadine Cohodas is a Washington writer and the author of the 1993 book Strom Thurmond and the

Politics of Southern Change.

Go to top

Pro/Con

Did North Carolina go too far in drawing congressional districts that favor the election of minority

candidates?

Pro

Justice Sandra DayJune 28, 1993.. It is unsettling how closely the

North Carolina plan resembles the most

egregious racial gerrymanders of the past. An

understanding of the nature of the appellants'

claim is critical to our resolution of the case. In

their complaint the appellants did not claim that

the General Assembly's reapportionment plan

unconstitutionally diluted white voting

strength. They did not even claim to be white.

Rather appellants' complaint alleged that the

deliberate segregation of voters into separate

districts on the basis of race violated their

constitutional right to participate in a color-

blind electoral process. . . .

Classifications of citizens solely on the basis of

race are by their very nature odious to a free

people whose institutions are founded uponthe doctrine of equality. They threaten to

stigmatize individuals by reason of their

membership in a racial group and to incite

racial hostility. . . . Accordingly we have held

that the Fourteenth Amendment requires state

legislation that expressly distinguishes among

citizens because of their race to be narrowly

tailored to further a compelling governmental

interest. . . .

A reapportionment plan that includes in one

district individuals who belong to the same

race, but who are otherwise widely separated

by geographical and political boundaries, and

who may have little in common with one

another but the color of their skin bears an

uncomfortable resemblance to political

apartheid.

For these reasons we conclude that a plaintiff

challenging a reapportionment statute under

the Equal Protection Clause may state a claim

by alleging that the legislation, though

race-neutral on its face, rationally cannot be

understood as anything other than an effort to

separate voters into different districts on the

basis of race, and that the separation lacks

sufficient justification. It is unnecessary for us

to decide whether or how a reapportionment

plan that, on its face, can be explained in

non-racial terms successfully could be

challenged. . . . We only hold that, on the facts

of this case, plaintiffs have stated a claim

sufficient to defeat the state appellees' motion

to dismiss.

Racial classifications of any sort pose the riskof lasting harm to our society. They reinforce

the belief, held by too many for too much of our

history, that individuals should be judged by

the color of their skin. Racial classifications

with respect to voting carry particular dangers.

Racial gerrymandering, even for remedial

purposes, may balkanize us into competing

racial factions; it threatens to carry us further

from the goal of a political system in which

race no longer matters. . . .

Con

H. SouterJune 28, 1993.. Today, the court recognizes a

new cause of action under which a state's

electoral redistricting plan that includes a

configuration so bizarre that it rationally

cannot be understood as anything other than

an effort to separate voters into different

districts on the basis of race (without) sufficient

justification will be subject to strict scrutiny. In

my view there is no justification for the court's

determination to depart from our prior decisions

by carving out this narrow group of cases for

strict scrutiny. . . .

Until today the court has analyzed equal-

protection claims involving race in electoral

districting differently from equal- protection

claims involving other forms of governmental

conduct. . . .

As long as members of racial groups have the

commonality of interest implicit in our ability to

talk about concepts like minority voting

strength and dilution of minority votes, and as

long as racial bloc voting takes place,

legislators will have to take race into account in

order to avoid dilution of minority voting

strength in districting plans they adopt. . . .

A second distinction between districting and

most other governmental decisions in which

race has figured is that those other decisions

using racial criteria characteristically occur in

circumstances in which the use of race to the

advantage of one person is necessarily at the

obvious expense of a member of a different

race. . . .

In districting, by contrast, the mere placement

of an individual in one district instead of

another denies no one a right or benefit

provided to others.

Under our cases there is in general a

requirement that in order to obtain relief under

the Fourteenth Amendment, the purpose and

effect of the districting must be to devalue the

effectiveness of a voter compared to what, as a

group member, he would otherwise be able to

enjoy. . . .

If a cognizable harm like dilution or the

abridgment of the right to participate in the

electoral process is shown, the districting plan

violates the Fourteenth Amendment. If not, it

does not. Under this approach, in the absence

of an allegation of such cognizable harm, there

is no need for further scrutiny because a

gerrymandering claim cannot be proven

without the element of harm.

The court offers no justification for treating the

narrow category of bizarrely shaped district

claims differently from other districting claims. .

. . I [therefore] would not respond to the

seeming egregiousness of the redistricting now

before us by untethering the concept of racial

gerrymander in such a case from the concept


1 of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


12/21

of harm exemplified by dilution. . . .

Go to top

&>4313,32?

1890-1910 Southern and border states revise laws to keep blacks from voting.

1890 Mississippi becomes first of former Confederate states to rewriteconstitution, imposing poll taxes, residency requirements and literacy

tests to disfranchise blacks.

1908 Georgia is last of deep South states to revise constitution todisfranchise black voters.

1940s-50s Congress attempts to enact anti-poll-tax legislation; Supreme Courtdecides an important voting-rights case.

April 13, 1944 Supreme Court strikes down white primary, ruling Texas DemocraticParty was equivalent to a state agency and could not discriminate.

June 12, 1945 House passes bill outlawing poll tax.

July 31, 1946 Senate fails to stop filibuster on anti-poll-tax bill.

July 21, 1947 House again passes anti-poll-tax bill; no action in Senate.

Feb. 2, 1948 President Harry S Truman calls for greater protections for voting.

Aug. 4, 1948 Senate kills anti-poll-tax legislation.

July 24, 1949 House again passes anti-poll-tax bill; companion proposal dies inSenate.

Aug. 29, 1957 Following House approval, Senate passes major civil rights bill thatincludes new protections for voting. Critics call measure too weak.

1960s Congress passes strong voting-rights legislation; black registration inSouthern states increases dramatically, and blacks begin to win

political office in sizable numbers.

May 6, 1960 New civil rights bill signed with voting-rights protections; critics call billa fraud.

Aug. 4, 1965 Senate OKs Voting Rights Act one day after House action.

Aug. 7-10, 1965 Government sues to eliminate poll taxes in Mississippi, Alabama,Texas and Virginia and suspends literacy tests in Alabama, Alaska,

Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia and North

Carolina.

March 7, 1966 Supreme Court upholds Voting Rights Act.

1970s Black electoral gains continue to increase in the South.

June 17, 1970 Extension of Voting Rights Act enforcement section is approved.

November 1972 Rep. Andrew J. Young, D-Ga., becomes first black congressman fromthe South in 70 years.

June 18, 1973 Supreme Court allows challenge to election schemes alleged to diluteminority voting strength.

July 28, 1975 Voting Rights Act enforcement section extended; anti-bias provisionsexpanded to cover Spanish-speaking.

November 1978 Number of black elected officials in 11 states of old Confederacy risesto 2,256, up from 776 in 1970.

1980s Congress renews enforcement sections of Voting Rights Act asSupreme Court rules on voting cases.

April 22, 1980 Supreme Court rules that plaintiffs in voting cases must prove officialswho created the election scheme acted with the purpose of racial

discrimination.


2 of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


13/21

June 1982 Congress extends Voting Rights Act, renewing critical enforcementsection and adding language to overturn the 1980 Supreme Court

decision.

June 30, 1986 In first application of 1982 Voting Rights Act changes, Supreme Courtholds that six of North Carolina's multi-member legislative districts

illegally diluted the strength of black votes.

1990s Federal courts hear challenges to districts drawn with majorities ofblack voters.

1991-92 States redraw electoral districts based on 1990 Census.

November 1992 Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia electfirst blacks to House in this century. Illinois elects black woman to

Senate.

June 28, 1993 Supreme Court reinstates lawsuit by white North Carolinians whochallenged the state's congressional map.

April 6, 1994 Federal judge orders cumulative voting in Maryland county to helpblacks win countywide office.

Aug. 1, 1994 Federal panel says redistricting plan in North Carolina is not illegal.

Go to top

Short Features

Language Help Crucial to Hispanic Voters

In the nation's rapidly growing Hispanic community, as in other ethnic groups where language is

often a barrier to voting, the 1965 Voting Rights Act is of paramount importance. The act has

provisions requiring bilingual election materials and voting assistance for any language-minority

group with over 10,000 voting-age citizens in a single county.

The growth of Hispanics, in particular, has been considerable. In 1900, according to the Census

Bureau, only about 130,000 people living in the United States were Spanish-speaking. Now, almost

one out of every 10 U.S. residents -- roughly 24.1 million individuals -- is of Spanish-speaking

origin. By the year 2000, a Hispanic population of 30.6 million is projected, and by 2010 the total is

expected to reach 39.3 million.

The Hispanic population explosion was apparent in five congressional districting maps that were

redrawn after the 1990 Census. Each created majority-Hispanic districts, boosting the Hispanic

Caucus in the House of Representatives from 13 to 18 members.

Hispanic leaders fear the Supreme Court's 1993 Shaw v. Reno decision may imperil some of their

gains. Indeed, the congressional districting map for Texas, with two new Hispanic-majority districts,

was challenged after Shaw. A federal trial on the issue ended July 1, and a decision is expected

later this summer.

Richard Larson, legal director for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

(MALDEF), worries that Shaw may go farther than just congressional districts. It applies across the

board, he says. One of the problems for us about the Texas case is that the congressional

districts are very similar to the state Senate districts. The fallout from a loss in the congressional

case could be huge -- and that's true elsewhere in the country.

Larson sees other ramifications from Shaw. We are having to slow down our litigation, he says,

because we assume we are increasingly going to be in a defensive posture on cases MALDEF

thought were already completed. Still other cases are more difficult to settle because of the

decision, he adds.

We draw single-member districts [for local elections], Larson says, and now the defendants

contend that those districts are bizarrely shaped and unconstitutional. In one case, involving CityCouncil elections in Santa Maria, Calif., Larson said MALDEF had expected to reach agreement

with city officials, who were defendants in the case. But because of the Shaw ruling, the officials

were heartened about getting approval to draw a different council map, and they rejected

MALDEF's proposal. The case went to trial July 6.

In addition to concerns about the impact of Shaw, Hispanic leaders also are concerned about the

low rate of citizenship among Hispanics. It almost doesn't make sense to do voter registration if 40

or 50 percent of the residents are not citizens, says Charles Kamasaki, a National Council of La

Raza vice president. Trying to create legislative districts that will enable Hispanics to elect the

candidate of their choice requires a much more concentrated population.

This view is seconded by Larson, who says that such districts must be as much as 65 percent


3 of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


14/21

Hispanic, rather than just over a majority, in order to elect an Hispanic. The extra margin is needed,

Larson says, because of unregistered voters and residents who are non- citizens or below the

voting age.

Even heavily Hispanic districts do not always yield Hispanic victors, however, which leaders say

tends to disprove the notion of racial-bloc voting. Kamasaki points to non-Hispanics like California

Democrat Howard L. Berman, whose district is 52.7 percent Hispanic, and Texas Democrats

Ronald D. Coleman and Gene Green, whose districts are 70.4 percent and 60.6 percent Hispanic,

respectively.

But according to The Washington Post, at least one-fourth of the residents in Green's and

Berman's districts are not citizens, and one- third of the eligible voters stayed home.

Hispanic leaders believe citizenship and voting participation are related. In the past, it did not

matter how many people voted -- Latinos could not get elected, so there was less appeal to

citizenship, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., told the Post. Now that people see that voting can

count for something, it is much easier to get them interested in becoming citizens and

participating.

[1]Hispanic Americans Today, U.S. Census Bureau, 1993. For background, see Hispanic

Americans, The CQ Researcher, Oct. 30, 1992, pp. 929-952.

[2]Moving Ahead, National Journal, April 2, 1994, p. 781; Black- and Hispanic-Majority Districts,

CQ Weekly Report, July 10, 1993, p. 1829.

[3]The Washington Post, May 22, 1994, p. C-3.

[4]Ibid.

Go to top

Asian-American Community Fighting for Civil Rights

In the past decade, the nation's Asian-American population doubled to 7.5 million. Census Bureau

projections and immigration patterns suggest there will be three times as many Asian-Americans

by the year 2020.

Ethnic diversity distinguishes the nation's Asian community, which encompasses large numbers of

Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian Americans.

Among the issues facing this diverse group are developing political cohesion and documenting

discriminatory voting patterns. As a result, Margaret Fung, executive director of the New

York-based Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, told a congressional panel, the

Voting Rights Act remains an important tool for Asian- Americans, particularly those provisions

requiring bilingual materials and voting assistance.

To work for the rights of Asian-Americans, a new organization, the National Asian Pacific American

Legal Consortium, was started in Washington, D.C., last year. It embraces Fung's group, the Asian

Law Caucus in San Francisco and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern Californiain Los Angeles.

The consortium asserts that prejudice, misunderstanding, institutional barriers and violence

continue to prevent Asian Pacific Americans from fully exercising their civil rights and civil liberties.

Some of that experience, Fung told members of a House subcommittee, is reflected in voting-rights

matters. In the past, Asian-Americans outside of Hawaii have been unsuccessful in persuading

officials to create majority-Asian districts. She cited unsuccessful efforts in New York City to keep

Manhattan's Chinatown in one state assembly district and to maximize Asian-American voting

strength on the City Council. Although a so-called Asian district was created, Fung said, Asian-

Americans were totally submerged within a much larger white population. In the four primary and

general elections for City Council held since 1991, she noted, Asian-American candidates have

been soundly defeated.

Fung said similar problems occurred in California, where in 1991, despite a broad-scale effort by

Asian-Americans, their communities were split up in legislative districts drawn in the San Francisco

area and central Los Angeles, where great numbers of Asian-Americans live.

Out of 120 state legislators in California, only one is an Asian- American, Fung said, and in San

Francisco, where Asian-Americans account for 30 percent of the city's population, only one Asian-

American has served on the Board of Supervisors. In New York City, where the Asian-American

population exceeds a half-million, Asian- Americans have never been elected to legislative office

this century, she said.

On a national level, there are four Asian-American representatives in the House. One, Democrat

Patsy T. Mink, was elected from Hawaii, a state with a majority Asian-American population. The

other three are from California: Democrats Robert T. Matsui and Norman Y. Mineta and Republican

Jay C. Kim. Hawaii's two Democratic senators, Daniel K. Inouye and Daniel K. Akaka, also are

Asian-American.


4 of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


15/21

Among the reasons for what Asian-Americans believe is their political underrepresentation is their

lower rate of citizenship in comparison with their actual population. Nationwide, according to Fung,

62 percent of all Asian-Americans are foreign-born, with the percentages even higher among

certain Asian groups, particularly in urban areas.

As a result, large numbers do not speak English well. They can pass citizenship tests, she said, but

are not able to understand complicated electoral procedures or obscure ballot propositions and

referenda. In New York City, for example, 44 percent of the Asians do not speak English well. In

Los Angeles, with more than 950,000 Asian- Americans, roughly 40 percent do not speak English

well; nearly two- thirds of them speak their native Asian language at home, according to Fung.

Unequal educational opportunities as well as the difficulties of learning to read and write a

language that utilizes an unfamiliar Romanized alphabet create special barriers for Asian-

Americans, Fung said, even though they may be well-informed about political issues through the

Asian language media and other sources.

Coupled with these problems is a low voter-registration rate. New York City Asians, for example,

represent 6 percent of the population but only 2 percent of the city's 3.4 million registered voters.

And in San Francisco, Asians make up fully 30 percent of the population but less than 5 percent of

its registered voters.

[1]For background, see Asian Americans, The CQ Researcher, Dec. 13, 1991, pp. 945-968.

[2]Testimony at hearings of the House Judiciary Civil and Constitutional Rights Subcommittee,

May 25, 1994.

[3]National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, 1993 Annual Report, p. 1.

Go to top

Go to top

Black and Hispanic Officials by Category, 1993

U.S Senate 1 0 U.S. Rep. 38 17 State Senator 135 45 State Rep. 388 111 Judges 595(*) 242(**) *

Elected only ** May include some appointed judges

Sources: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies; National Association of Latino Elected

and Appointed Officials

Go to top

Go to top

Challenging North Carolina's Districts

A North Carolina redistricting plan that created two oddly shaped black-majority congressional

districts -- the 1st, represented by Eva Clayton, and the 12th, represented by Melvin Watt --

sparked a constitutional challenge last year. On Aug. 1, a special three-judge federal panel

approved the plan. The decision is virtually certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

GRAPHICS: Map, (Congressional Quarterly).

Source: Congressional Quarterly

Go to top

Go to top

Districts with Black and Hispanic Majorities

The list below shows congressional districts with a majority population of blacks or Hispanics, and

the percentage of minorities in each district. Districts in North Carolina, Louisiana, Texas, Florida

and Georgia have been challenged.

Black-Majority Districts (32)

Total % of District % of Blacks Minorities Representative New York 11 74.0 84.2 Major R. Owens,

D. Maryland 7 71.0 73.1 Kweisi Mfume, D. Michigan 15 70.0 75.1 Barbara-Rose Collins, D. Illinois

1 69.7 74.1 Bobby L. Rush, D. Michigan 14 69.1 71.2 John Conyers, Jr,.D. Illinois 2 68.5 75.4 Mel

Reynolds, D. Alabama 7 67.5 68.0 Earl F. Hilliard, D. Louisiana 4 66.4 67.6 Cleo Fields, D. Illinois 765.6 72.8 Cardiss Collins, D. Virginia 3 64.1 66.6 Robert C. Scott, D. Georgia 11 64.1 65.9 Cynthia

McKinney, D. Mississippi 2 63.0 63.6 Bennie Thompson, D. Georgia 5 62.3 65.1 John Lewis, D.

South Carolina 6 62.2 62.9 James E. Clyburn, D. Pennsylvania 2 62.2 65.9 Lucien E. Blackwell, D.

Louisiana 2 61.0 66.5 William J. Jefferson, D. New York 10 60.7 79.0 Edolphus Towns, D. New

Jersey 10 60.2 73.6 Donald M. Payne, D. Tennessee 9 59.2 60.7 Harold E. Ford, D. Ohio 11 58.6

60.7 Louis Stokes, D. Maryland 4 58.5 68.9 Albert R. Wynn, D. Florida 17 58.4 80.2 Carrie Meek,

D. North Carolina 1 57.3 58.6 Eva Clayton, D. North Carolina 12 56.6 58.6 Melvin Watt, D. Georgia

2 56.6 58.7 Sanford D. Bishop Jr., D. New York 6 56.2 77.2 Floyd H. Flake, D. Florida 3 55.0 58.3

Corrine Brown, D. Pennsylvania 1 52.4 64.0 Thomas M. Foglietta, D Missouri 1 52.3 54.2 William

L. Clay, D. Florida 23 51.6 60.7 Alcee L. Hastings, D. Texas 18 50.9 68.7 Craig Washington, D.

Texas 30 50.0 68.6 Eddie Bernice Johnson, D. Hispanic-Majority Districts (20)


5 of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


16/21

% of Total % of District Hispanics Minorities Representative California 33 83.7 91.9 Lucille Roybal-

Allard, D. Texas 15 74.5 76.1 E. Kika de la Garza, D. Texas 16 70.4 75.0 Ronald D. Coleman, D.

Florida 21 69.6 74.5 Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R. Florida 18 66.7 70.8 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R. Texas 27

66.2 69.3 Solomon P. Ortiz, D. Illinois 4 65.0 73.2 Luis V. Gutierrez, D. Texas 23 62.5 66.4 Henry

Bonilla, R. California 34 62.3 73.3 Esteban E. Torres, D. California 30 61.5 84.8 Xavier Becerra, D.

Texas 20 60.7 67.8 Henry B. Gonzalez, D. Texas 29 60.6 72.2 Gene Green, D. Texas 28 60.4 69.6

Frank Tejeda, D. New York 16 60.2 95.8 Jose E. Serrano, D. California 31 58.5 82.5 Matthew G.

Martinez, D. New York 12 57.9 86.0 Nydia M. Velazquez, D. California 20 55.4 67.4 Cal Dooley, D.

California 26 52.7 65.8 Howard L. Berman, D. Arizona 2 50.5 61.8 Ed Pastor, D. California 46 50.0

64.4 Robert K. Dornan, R.

Note: There are two districts, both in Hawaii, with majority-Asian populations. The total minority

population percentages are based on 1990 Census data, subtracting the non-Hispanic white

population from the total population in the district.

Sources: Polidata, Congressional Quarterly, Census Bureau

Go to top

Go to top

Black and Hispanic Elected Officials, 1984-93

The number of black elected officials increased 40 percent from 1984-93, while the number of

Hispanic elected officials increased 65 percent.

Black Hispanic 1984 5,700 3,128 1985 6,056 3,147 1986 6,424 3,202 1987 6,681 3,317 1988

6,829 3,360 1989 7,226 3,783 1990 7,370 4,004 1991 7,480 4,202 1992 7,552 4,994 1993 7,984

5,170



Go to top

Go to top

Black and Hispanic Elected Officials, 1993

The list below shows the number of black and Hispanic elected officials from each state and

Washington, D.C. The list includes federal, state and local officials. State Black Hispanic Alabama

699 0 Alaska 3 0 Arizona 15 350 Arkansas 380 1 California 273 797 Colorado 20 204 Connecticut

62 19 Delaware 23 1 D.C. 198 0 Florida 200 68 Georgia 545 0 Hawaii 0 0 Idaho 0 2 Illinois 465 797

Indiana 72 8 Iowa 11 0 Kansas 21 6 Kentucky 63 0 Louisiana 636 9 Maine 1 0 Maryland 140 2

Massachusetts 30 3 Michigan 333 10 Minnesota 16 3 Mississippi 751 0 Missouri 185 1 Montana 0

2 Nebraska 6 3 Nevada 10 5 New Hampshire 2 0 New Jersey 211 44 New Mexico 3 661 New York

299 93 North Carolina 468 0 North Dakota 0 0 Ohio 219 9 Oklahoma 123 1 Oregon 10 5

Pennsylvania 158 8 Rhode Island 12 1 South Carolina 450 1 South Dakota 3 0 Tennessee 168 0

Texas 472 2,030 Utah 0 4 Vermont 2 0 Virginia 155 0 Washington 19 15 West Virginia 21 0

Wisconsin 30 2 Wyoming 1 5

TOTAL 7,984 5,170



Go to top

Bibliography

Books

Guinier, Lani , The Tyranny of the Majority, Free Press, 1994. This collection of Guinier's law

review articles about voting rights figured prominently in the dispute over her nomination to head

the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Guinier has written a new introductory essay

discussing the nomination dispute and providing new context for her articles, which had been

written in previous years. The book also includes a spirited foreword by Yale University law

Professor Stephen L. Carter.

Amy, Douglas J. , Real Choices/New Voices: The Case for Proportional Representation

Elections in the United States, Columbia University, 1993.Amy takes issue with the existing

winner-take-all plurality electoral system in the United States. He argues that the system favors

men and the majority race, in effect limits choices to the two major political parties and ends up

protecting them from competition. Proportional representation in large multi-member districts, as

opposed to the single-member districts used in virtually all U.S. elections, gives all voters, even

those in the minority, a chance to elect representatives, he says. Amy presents arguments against

proportional representation, but he asserts that these are less significant than the positives that

accrue from the model he describes.

Parker, Frank R. , Black Votes Count: Political Empowerment in Mississippi, University of

North Carolina, 1990. Parker, who ran the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights office in Mississippi


6 of 21 9/21/15, 2:24


17/21

for eight years, provides a detailed case study of voting- rights litigation in Mississippi. Included

with the narrative are charts, maps and descriptions of important Supreme Court cases interpreting

the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Lawson, Steven F. , Black Ballots: Voting Rights in the South 1944- 69, Columbia University,

1976. Where Parker's book looks at voting rights in a particular state, Lawson provides a broader

look at voting rights in the entire region. It includes several chapters on the state of the franchise for

black Southerners before 1944 that are helpful in understanding the litigation and congressional

fights that came later.

Woodward, C. Vann , Origins of the New South, Louisiana State University, 1961. This classic

on Southern history provides a thorough and readable explanation of how segregation developed

across the South after the Civil War.

Articles

Sunstein, Cass R. , Voting Rites, The New Republic, April 25, 1994. Based on a review of

Guinier's book, this essay discusses the broad social issues that surround the voting-rights debate.

Sunstein advocates race-neutral and race-blind voting reforms even if the problems they seek to

address have racial dimensions.

Karlen, Pamela S. , End of the Second Reconstruction? The Nation, May 23, 1994. A

professor of law at the University of Virginia, Karlen has written extensively about voting rights.

Praising the Voting Rights Act for its effectiveness, she criticizes the Supreme Court and other

federal courts for substituting their narrow vision of voting rights for the choices made by the

political branches of government.

Reports and Studies

Studies, Economic , Black Elected Officials -- A National Roster, 1993. The center, a

nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization on black issues, publishes an annual roster of black

elected officials. It includes state-by-state breakdowns of the elected officials by level ofgovernment and positions. These yearly reports are available going back to1970.

Educational, Appointed Officials , Hispanic Elected Officials 1993 -- Statistical Summary,

September 1993. This report includes several charts and graphs showing the number of Hispanic

governmental officials in the United States. There are breakdowns by level of government service,

gender and party affiliation in states with large Hispanic populations.

Consortium, American Legal , 1993 Annual Report., . This is