Minority-Majority Redistricting - Article Example

Minority-Majority Redistricting Redistricting in accordance with race, otherwise known as minority-majority racial redistricting, is resorted eitherto advance or smother minority rights in the United States. Redistricting, or the process of redrawing electoral boundaries, is done in the US every ten years after a new census of the population is conducted. It first found basis in the case of Baker v Carr 369 US 186 (1962), where the US Supreme Court laid down the “one person, one vote” doctrine. Under this doctrine the malapportionment or disparity that existed between and among electoral districts relative to their population resulting in a district, with less population, having the same weight of vote as another with a higher population was found to be unconstitutional (Kerr 18). In the subsequent case of Reynolds v Sims 377 US 533 (1964) the Court held that such disparities were in fact, contrary to the intent of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and that electoral districts, therefore, should be equal as far as practicable. In several cases, the Court had opportunities to rule on what exactly constitutes practicable equality relative to redistricting: population deviation may allowed at 10% maximum deviation without justification according to the Reynolds case; a total population deviation of 0.7% in New Jersey was rejected in Karcher v Daggett 462 US 725 (1983), and; in Vieth v Commonwealth 241 F. Supp 2d 478 (2003), a population deviation of 19 persons in a Pennsylvania congressional redistricting plan was likewise rejected due to Pennsylvania’s failure to justify it (Handley & Grofman 142-143). Despite the Court’s stringent application of ‘equality’ of population re the redistricting process, it has not said much about the issue of gerrymandering, or the manipulation of the redistricting process to maximize its advantage to the redistricting authority, which may either be in the hands of Democrats or the Republicans, as the case may be. As a matter of fact, racial gerrymandering, a relatively recent phenomenon, was officially prompted by a 1990 Department of Justice instruction to state legislators to employ redistricting as a means of maximizing the voting power of minority groups (Sidlow & Henschen 242), although it had its early beginning after the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, when racist whites from the South used it to prevent blacks from being elected to public office (Handley & Grofman 144). A redistricting plan, however, that advocates a minority-majority redistricting principle not only fosters divisiveness but may actually imperil minority interests in Congress. Implementing a minority-majority redistricting, at all cost, has resulted in some strange looking electoral districts all over the country. In North Carolina, for example, one of its congressional districts, i.e. the 12th Congressional District, is a long narrow strip of 165-mile long area straddling the length of Interstate 85 (see Fig. 1) traversing through the middle of five other congressional districts (Sidlow & Henschen 242). The 12th District was engendered by the state legislature’s effort to implement a minority-majority district albeit initially, it submitted a lone minority-majority district to the Justice Department but was advised to exert more effort in that direction. The second submission resulted in two minority-majority districts, one of which is the 12th District and the other the 1st District (Peterson 2). The 11th District of Georgia, on the other hand, “stretched from Atlanta to the Atlantic” and divided eight counties and five municipalities into halves (Sidlow & Henschen 242). Noting the bizarre shapes that racial gerrymandering has spawned, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in Shaw v Reno 509 US 630 (1993), the case originated by North Carolina’s 12th District, that a minority-majority redistricting plan that finds basis solely on where minority voters live is not acceptable. A significant part of the aforesaid ruling goes “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” (quoted Peterson 3). Fig 1 North Carolina’s 11th District (Source: NationalAtlas.gov) A minority-majority redistricting at all cost regardless of the geographical disparity and absurdity it results underscores not only racial divide but also tends to place the equal protection clause of the Constitution to question. The equal protection clause ensures that all people are regarded in the same manner and are treated equally by the state without discrimination. That regard must be the same whether a person belongs to the majority or minority (Sidlow & Henschen 99). On the other hand, it is also a fact that all factions of society, even the minority, must be given voices in Congress. There is however, a perspective that suggests that a minority-majority redistricting may defeat its purpose and may actually place minority interests in Congress in peril. This is because when black minority are packed into few districts to attain majority, the few remaining outside such districts may be swayed to vote for the conservative Republicans who are known to oppose legislations espoused by the minority. The packing of Democrats into a few districts may result in the victory of more Republicans, a scenario that happened both in 1992 and 1994 (Handley & Grofman 147). In addition, there are many hindrances to a minority-majority redistricting system like the strategy of ‘matching’ that bears similarity to minority-majority redistricting strategy but favors the incumbent and done by packing ardent supporters in one district together with a few ardent opponents (Powell 2006). Redistricting is indeed “a mapmaking mess” (Goldblatt 1) and a minority-majority strategy cannot warrant that minority interests will be aptly represented in Congress considering the many hindrances that militate against it. A redistricting that solely relies on minority presence, like the 12th District of North Carolina, will always be open to a charge of breach of the equal protection clause. Moreover, the strategy tends to pack too many Democrat supporters into a few districts allowing the conservative Republicans to take more districts and thus, possibly repulse black-sponsored bills in Congress. Finally, a minority-majority strategy is too divisive and calls too much attention to racial divide and may foster competition between races. A good redistricting strategy should be one that makes geographical sense like having compactness and contiguity of land area where people share many commonalities other than race and at the same time ensure minority representation in Congress. However, proposals for any redistricting strategy will be ineffectual so long as the redistricting authority remains in the hands of state legislatures because they will be always underpinned by vested political interests. It would be best if a federal law can be enacted that would govern redistricting as a whole and assign the authority to its implementation to non-partisan bodies like what has been done in a few states. Works Cited Baker v Carr 369 US 186 (1962). Greenblatt, Alan. The Mapmaking Mess. Governing Magazine, 2001 January. Handley, Lisa & Grofman, Bernard. Redistricting in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press US, 2008. Karcher v Daggett 462 US 725 (1983). Kerr, Gail. Gordon, Tanner Don’t Need Map to See what’s Ahead: Tennessee Congressional Districts. The Tennessean, 2009 Dec 15. NationalAtlas.gov. Congressional Districts. http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/congress.html. Peterson, David. Whiteyâ s America. Z Magazine, 1995 June. Powell, Tracie. Drawn Out of the Game. 5 October 2006. http://diverseeducation.com/article/6457/1.php. Reynolds v Sims 377 US 533 (1964). Shaw v Reno 509 US 630 (1993). Sidlow, Edward & Henschen, Beth. America at Odds, 6th Edition. Cengage Learning, 2008. Vieth v Commonwealth 241 F. Supp 2d 478 (2003). Read More