Exam Monday

• slides up on web page

• review questions up on web page

Minority Representation

• Why value, what effects

• Descriptive– legislature mirrors population

• Substantive– legislature approves policies in group’s

interest

Minority Representation

• Why value?• Fairness

– history of explicit disenfranchisement• Empowerment

– Trust– Participation– Contacting representatives

Minority Representation

• Descriptive• US pop, 2000

– White 71%, 86% of US House– Hispanic 12%, 4% of US House– African Am 12%, 9% of US House– Asian/Pacific 4%, 1% of US House– Native Am. .7%, n/a

Minority Representation

• Descriptive Representation• How facilitate via elections?• Voting Rights Act Amendments

– registration without representation?– maximize opportunities for real representation?– since 1970s, Act used to challenge local election

systems that ‘dilute’ minority representation

Minority Representation

• Majority Minority Districts– Local “at-large” elections original target– “sweep effect” group w/ 40% could lose all

seats– Gingles v. Thornberg, 1986

• “at-large” illegal if:– minority group politically cohesive– minority could be a majority in potential district– majority votes as block against minority

Minority Representation

• Racially polarized voting– in parts of US, this has been a fact of life

– southern parts of the US, in particular

– do the math: if white majority won’t vote for minority candidates.....

Minority Representation

• US House districts also suspect– Remedy: Minority / Majority Districts

• 1990 US Congress Redistricting– Maximize number of majority / minority

districts in US House, state legislatures– Bush Dept. of Justice, Latino and African

American litigants in synch

Minority Representation

• Majority Minority Districts– once estimated that district must be at

least 65% minority to guarantee election of minority candidate

• Congress elected in 1992– first since new system– record number of African Americans,

Latinos

Minority Representation

• Majority Minority Districts• Partisan consequences

– Overwhelmingly safe Democratic seats– Mostly in South, Southwest– Demise of Democratic voters in “influence

districts”– Surrounding districts more competitive for GOP– 1992 Bad election overall for Dems (9 seat loss)

Minority Representation

• Majority Minority Seats• Partisan Consequences?

– 1994 ‘Republican Revolution’– GOP gain 54 seats

• many gains in southern states• some in formerly majority Dem districts.

– GOP assumed control of US House / Senate

Minority Representation

• Challenges to Majority Minority Districts:

– ‘Unfair’ to white voters– trade-off, loss of substantive representation– “Bizarre” contours to districts

• difficult to draw, at times

North Carolina as Example

• 1991 State leg plan, 1 minority CD– state 22% African American, 12 districts– ‘proportionality’ = at least 2 seats (2.64)

• Population more concentrated in North• Dem state legislature changed plan to

add 2nd minority district

North Carolina 12th CD, 1992, 64% Black

WSJ: “political pornography”

North Carolina as Example

• Shaw v. Reno (1993)– legal challenge to NC 12th CD map

• when a State concentrates a dispersed minority population in a single district by disregarding "traditional districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions" the State is drawing a racial gerrymander that is subject to strict scrutiny

North Carolina as Example

• Shaw v Reno 1993

• ‘By perpetuating such notions, a racial gerrymander may exacerbate the very patterns of racial bloc voting that majority-minority districting is sometimes said to counteract’

North Carolina as Example

• Shaw v. Reno 1993– race-based redistricting not always

unconstitutional– states did need to comply with Section 2

and Section 5 of Voting Rights Act– but...race can’t be main factor, district must

be compact

North Carolina 12 CD, 1997; 52% white

New map,another lawsuit

North Carolina as Example

• Cromartie v. Hunt, 1998– complaint alleged that the new 1st and

12th congressional districts are unjustified racial gerrymanders. The new 12th, was "fruit of the poisonous tree"--the poisonous tree being the old 12th and the poison being its racially gerrymandered origins

North Carolina as Example

• Cromartie v. Hunt, 1998

• 12th of 1997 was noncompact and showed evidence that race was the predominant factor in its design. The Court noted that as the district wound through certain counties and towns, the deciding factor in which precincts it picked up along the way seemed to be race rather than party.

Third Time’s a Charm? NC 12th CD, 1998

More compact,but not quite...

NC 12th CD post 2000 census, 47% white, 45% Black

Represented by Mel Watt (D) since 1993

Partisan View of Law?• Shaw case

– two judges appointed by Democrats and one by a Republican.

– ruled against complaint three times to uphold a plan or the use of a plan.

– Each time the Republican dissented.• Cromartie case

– two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee.

– ruled 2-1 in favor of complaint, with the Democratic appointee dissenting

Minority Representation• Future of Majority Minority Districts• Minority litigants sensitive to partisan

consequences (substantive rep.)– in 2000, tables turned re: GOP vs. Dems

• Compactness– depends on segregation

• What about groups that are geographically dispersed– Latinos?

Minority Representation

• Alternatives to Majority Minority Districts• Cumulative Voting

– A remedy in several VRA cases at state and county levels in• TX, SD, AL, NC

Minority Representation

• Cumulative Voting• How’s it work

– ‘modified at-large’ system– multi-member districts– Voter casts votes equal to number of seats being

selected– voter can ‘plump’ all votes to one candidate,

spread votes around...

Minority Representation

• Semi-proportionate– threshold of exclusion = 1/(m + 1)– 2 seats up = 33%– 3 seats up = 25%– 4 seats up = 20%– 5 seats up = 17%– 6 seats up = 15 %

Minority Representation

assume 3 seats up, 10,000 voters (30,000 votes)

If ‘at large,’65% white voters, 35% Latino voters6500 white voters, 3500 Latino

• if racially polarized voting....

Minority Representation • Cumulative Voting 3 seat example

Ethn. name votes for seat 1:

W A 6,000 electedL F 3,500

W H 500seat 2

W B 4,000 electedL D 3,500W E 2,500

seat 3:W C 6,500 electedL G 3,500

Minority Representation • CV, 3 seat example; 600 votes shift

Ethn. name votes for seat 1:

W A 6,000 electedL F 3,500

W H 500seat 2

W B 3,400 L D 3,500 electedW E 3,100

seat 3:W C 6,500 electedL G 3,500

Cumulative Voting

• Evidence– more candidates– more campaigning– more turnout– more minority representation

Minority Representation

• Cumulative Voting• Minority representation w/o the

acrimony?• Not automatic• Not ‘tokenism’• Cross-racial coalitions?

Minority Representation

• Is racially polarized voting a thing of the past?

• If so, how defend majority-minority districts?

• Any evidence that we are ‘beyond race?’