Redistricting: Voting Rights Act
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
14 responses to “Redistricting: Voting Rights Act”
-
Yet another informative and thought-provoking article without even a hint of partisanship.
The creation of the Voting Rights Act – 100 years after the Civil War and imposition of “reconstruction” confirmed a reality that even in 1965 , there continued to be systemic racism in existing laws and rules.
And I know there are some in this blog that were alive and old enough to see it around them in their lives.
But I also have misgivings about the Act because when we create districts that “favor” certain constituencies, we also, in essence, and on purpose create other districts that favor other constituencies and when you combine that with our two-party system of governance, it actually seems to foster gridlock and discourage coalition-building and compromise.
I think our two party-system may have evolved to a point where it really no longer really functions to represent multiple constituencies, but rather winner-takes-all constituencies.
Switching gears, I agree about the sole benefit of the current redistricting – the transparency – simple as it is – does reveal a significant under current of partisan politics – as well as the players… like the ones who would, despite the intent, still create districts that favor incumbents and preserve their own interests over the interests of voters.
-
Our party-system has always been designed to be a “winner take all system.” The purpose of the Voting Rights Act was to enable multiple constituencies to have an opportunity to have someone of their choice at the table.
I disagree with your opinion that, in requiring the creation of districts that favor minorities, the Voting Rights Act therefore creates other districts that favor other constituencies. The aim is to make sure that those “other constituencies, i.e. white voters, are not favored in all districts.
-
In a political world where whites only vote for whites and blacks for blacks then some might think the outcome is preordained according to numbers, but I think as a society we have moved beyond that to where white guys can get black votes and vice versa and in a district where there are a significant number of black votes – but not a majority – they can definitely influence the outcome.
I realize I’m probably in a minority on this view.
😉
-
We have moved beyond that point a little. Some examples at the state level are whites voting to elect Bobby Scott to Congress and blacks voting fr Joe Morrissey for the state Senate. And there is the example of Barak Obama, for whom a lot of white folks voted.
That is the purpose of the racially polarized voting analysis–to determine if racial groups–the minority and the white majority–cohesively vote for different people. Does the minority consistently and cohesively favor the same candidate and does the majority consistently and cohesively oppose the candidate favored by the minority, regardless of party or race of the candidate? If the answer is “No”, the state is not required to create a majority-minority district. If the answer is “Yes”, the state is required to create a majority-minority district to enable the minority a fair opportunity to elect the representative they want.
Whenever or wherever we get to the point that there is not racially polarized voting, we will not need to create majority-minority districts.
-
-
-
-
Dick – “In summary, Section 2 requires that members of a minority group have a
fair opportunity “to elect representatives of their choice.””What if the reps are R and not D?
I’ve seen that happen. There has been improvement in what has gone on in Chesapeake which put in 8 instead of 9 R’s this past time. I didn’t say its perfect, I have some wants on the minority side, but it is improving.
Can you explain to me why it is ok locally but not commonwealth wide? What if the person who does a better job is an R and the D is only elected for party reasons?
I certainly get more communication and less problems out of the R I had rather than the D.
-
Section 2 aims to ensure that minorities have the opportunity to elect they candidate they prefer. If a majority-minority district elects a Republican, so be it. The Act is not designed to elect whomever “does a better job”, which is a subjective matter. It is designed to enable minorities to put into office “representatives of their choice.”
-
-
Dick – this is an outstanding analysis.
-
As we went into the map drawing process in 1991, we were immersed in these rules as they were perceived to exist at that time. And we, the Republicans, filed a complaint under Section 2 with the Justice Department and got a couple of House districts changed. The Democrats were packing minority votes to protect an incumbent. Shocking, I know, that Democrats would do that…. And the initial 1991 Senate map drawn by Democrats was outrageously illegal. The Voting Rights Act did more to bring partisan parity to the South than any other legal mechanism. The late Congressman Caldwell Butler explained how it would to me about 40 years ago, while I was still with the newspaper and he was a strong advocate for its reauthorization.
Glad you are paying close attention, Dick. Good story.
-
We need more Caldwell Butlers in office today.
-
And perhaps A.B. Dick Howard as well.
-
Editorial correction: I think you mean A.E. Dick Howard. He was never in the legislature. He was the staff director of the Commission that drafted the proposed 1970 Va. Constitution. I don’t know if he is still on the faculty of UVa law school or has retired, but he is recognized internationally as an expert on Constitutions and was the author of the Commentary on the new Va. constitution.
-
Yep, I managed to botch that up.
But I think he was involved… read on:
-
I either forgot, or did not realize, that he was a member of a group pushing to amend the constitution so as to establish an independent commission.
-
-
-
-
At some point, the Commission will add the political factors, i.e. voting patterns and incumbent addresses into the mix.
I think incumbents’ addresses should be completely excluded from consideration during the mapping process. In fact, I might even support an amendment to the recent constitutional amendment to add language which explicitly states that incumbent addresses shall not be considered in any way, shape or form during redistricting.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.