Why Democrats Gain From Redistricting Decision

WASHINGTON — Segregate voters by race? What an outrageous idea! On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the practice unconstitutional. Who in the world could be in favor of such a thing?

Blacks are. So are Latinos. And Republicans, too. Racial redistricting is the story of one of the strangest and unholiest alliances in U.S. politics.

Racial redistricting is the practice of creating so-called “majority-minority” districts--legislative districts with a majority black or Latino population. It’s justified by the assumption that most whites won’t vote for a black or Latino candidate.

Is there any evidence for this?

Of the 17 Latino representatives in Congress, 15 represent majority Latino districts. Of 36 African-American Democrats in Congress, not one represents a majority white district.

From 1901 until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, not one black was elected to Congress from the South. Today, there are 17 Southern blacks in Congress. Every one represents a black majority district. In fact, more than 90% of black state legislators nationwide are elected from black majority districts.

To be sure, two black members of Congress got elected in majority white districts--Gary A. Franks of Connecticut and J.C. Watts of Oklahoma. Both are Republicans. That’s one way black candidates can get whites to vote for them.

Otherwise, minority candidates have to rely on majority-minority districts. Previous courts promoted the view that, under the Voting Rights Act, states had to create as many majority-minority districts as possible. Under President George Bush, the Republican National Committee and the Justice Department encouraged that interpretation. The idea was to ensure the election of the maximum number of minority candidates by creating reserved seats for them.

It’s a form of proportional representation. If blacks constitute 12% of the population, then blacks should make up approximately 12% of Congress. In fact, even with racial redistricting, blacks comprise only 7% of Congress. Latinos account for 10% of the population buy only 3% of Congress.

There’s something vaguely un-American about proportional representation. It’s not the way our system is supposed to work. No group is entitled to a certain proportion of political victories. After all, women make up just over half the voters. Why don’t we insist that half the members of Congress be female?

A lot of people would like to do that. But there’s one big problem. Most women live among men. It’s impossible to draw district boundaries that would create majority-female districts. It’s possible to do that for blacks and Latinos, however--if often with great difficulty.

Thus, in 1992, North Carolina created a peculiarly shaped black-majority congressional district that snaked along an interstate highway picking up black voters across the state. The Supreme Court ruled the district unconstitutional in 1993. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor called it “political apartheid,” arguing the district was “so irrational on its face that it can be understood only as an effort to segregate voters into separate voting districts.”

Last week’s case concerned a black-majority Georgia district nicknamed “Sherman’s March” because it traced the Union general’s path from Atlanta to the sea. The court ruled that district unconstitutional--not because of its bizarre shape, but because race was the chief consideration in drawing the boundaries.

According to Justice Antonin Scalia, racial redistricting perpetuates the idea that “people vote by race a we must therefore district by race.” Five justices decided that was a bad idea. The implications of their decision could be profound. Majority-minority districts have been created at all levels of government, not just for the House of Representatives but also for state legislatures and city councils nationwide. If race can no longer be a predominant consideration in drawing district boundaries, the result will be a sharp reduction in the number of elected minority officials.

Now here’s the irony. Fewer black legislators could be good news for Democrats. Blacks are the most reliable Democratic voters in the electorate. If you pile blacks into black majority districts, you have to take them out of white majority districts. It’s called “bleaching.” Whiter districts, particularly in the South, are more likely to vote Republican.

That’s why Republicans joined forces with blacks to help create as many black majority districts as possible. Both sides benefited. Blacks got more blacks elected. The number of blacks in Congress went from 25 in 1990 to 38 in 1992. Republicans got more Republicans elected. That helped them take over Congress last year.

Electing more black Democrats helps Republicans in two ways. It leaves whiter districts that will elect more Republicans. It also creates a blacker Democratic Party that gets pulled further to the left.

Racial redistricting wasn’t the main reason why Republicans took over Contress. But it helped. One study looked at districts held by Democrats in 1991 where redistricting lowered the percentage of blacks by more than 10 points. All the districts went Republican in 1992 or 1994.

Look at Georgia, the subject of last week’s case. In 1990, Georgia elected nine Democrats and one Republican, named Gingrich, to Congress. Eight of the nine Democrats were white. Today, Georgia’s congressional delegation has eight Republicans--all white--and three Democrats--all black. Georgia doesn’t have a single white Democrat in the House.

As the Democratic Party in the South gets smaller, it gets blacker. Southern white Democrats are an endangered species. The South is approaching a dangerous situation it has not experienced since Reconstruction: two political parties, segregated by race, separate and unequal.

Because of racial redistricting, more blacks have gotten elected to Congress. But are they more powerful? Black Democrats have become a minority of a minority. They have gained power in a party that has lost power.

What implications does the Supreme Court decision have for President Bill Clinton? Technically, the Administration lost the case. The Clinton Justice Department defended majority-minority districts. Though the decision may help Democrats, Clinton dares not risk offending blacks with any show of approval.

Black leaders see the loss as another serious setback. They’re waiting to hear what Clinton has to say about affirmative action this month. If Clinton backtracks, it could make Jesse Jackson or the Rev. Al Sharpton angry enough to oppose him next year--possibly as an independent.

Some liberal Democrats, disgusted with Clinton, hope that happens. Sure, an independent black candidate would doom Clinton’s reelection prospects. But it would also bring a lot more blacks out to vote. And they would vote Democratic for every office below President.

Clinton still has one card to play. The court decided the Georgia case by a 5 to 4 vote. Clinton’s two appointees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, both dissented. That gives Clinton an argument he can use with minority voters, “Reelect me, and I’m likely to get another Supreme Court appointment. That could turn the majority in your favor.”

On the other hand, if the President believes Democrats have paid too high a price for racial redistricting, he’ll keep his mouth shut.