Redistricting in Today's Shifting Racial Landscape

I was shortsighted, naive and narrow-minded endorse the concept of drawing Congressional districts take racial demographics' into account. (1) INTRODUCTION Cynthia Tucker, in her confessional editorial in the South's premier newspaper, was too hard on herself. She had long supported race-conscious districting, but her erstwhile convictions had been those of the entire civil rights community and of elected officials across the political spectrum who saw such districting as one litmus test of a commitment racial equality. (2) As the only Black editorial page editor of a major newspaper, Tucker could hardly thought anything else. In addition, it was in fact neither shortsighted nor naive regarded the deliberate drawing of districts sure elect minority candidates legislative office as important in earlier times. As Tucker herself notes, [T]he tactic worked. In 1980, there were only 18 Blacks in the U.S. House of Representatives. Now, there are 44, many of them elected from districts drawn meet the mandates of the Voting Rights Act. (3) They were drawn, that is, conform the demands of section 5, the preclearance provision of the statute--as it was interpreted in both Democratic and Republican administrations. (4) The preclearance provision demands that districting maps in jurisdictions considered covered (which are mainly in the South) obtain approval from the Justice Department or the District Court of the District of Columbia before being implemented. (5) The districts that sent many new Black representatives Congress would not been precleared for use in upcoming elections unless the states had been able prove their plans did not have the purpose and [would] not the effect of denying or abridging the right vote on account of race or color. (6) Those that been precleared usually been drawn guarantee safe seats for minority candidates. How many Black House members would been elected had they not been protected from White competition in the safe majority-minority districts that the Voting Rights Act came demand? Far fewer, it is safe say. A number of critics of section 5 began arguing against race-driven electoral maps as early as the 1980s. The balance between costs and benefits was not a simple question when White southern voters would not vote for Black candidates, whatever their credentials. (7) The importance of descriptive representation--Blacks representing Blacks--cannot be dismissed. The history of Whites-only legislatures in the South made the presence of Blacks both symbolically and substantively important. Shared political power was integral respect and self-respect. And, in recent decades, Black electoral success never dissipated that yearning for both--which was surely one reason African-American voters were so euphoric when Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election. (8) Racially integrated legislative settings worked change racial attitudes. Most southern Whites had little or no experience working with Blacks as equals and undoubtedly saw dark skin as a sign of incompetence. When Blacks became legislative colleagues, their presence inhibited the expression of racist sentiments, and conversations in the public arena changed. (9) And yet not only Ms. Tucker but many spokesmen for Black political interests are today beginning question their prior commitment what the ACLU once called max-Black districting. (10) The racial zeitgeist is changing as racism wanes. Civil rights advocates no longer predictably embrace a policy that once seemed clearly in the interest of African Americans. In 1995, Representative Melvin Watt (D-N.C.) argued that without racially gerrymandered districts designed ensure Black office-holding you're not going minority representation in Congress. It's just that simple. (11) Today, by contrast, Watt is arguing that the goal of the Voting Rights Act was to level the playing field for African American candidates and voters. …