State Politics Lecture and Materials - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

State Politics

Lecture and Materials

Week

11: Race and Redistricting

November 2,

2017Slide2

Class Agenda

Discussion of Week

11

Discussant News

Articles

Presentation/Discussion

of Alabama Paper

Discussion

of

Carey

Discussion of

DeGrandy

Discussion of

Maginnis BookSlide3

United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg v. Carey

(1977)

Background

Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx were covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

Section 5 requires preclearance of any voting or election changes prior to implementation

Notice the state tried to meet the objections of the Justice DepartmentRemember this is before gentrificationThe African-American population of the borough skyrocketed after WWIIIt was home to a large Hasidic communityThey were upset that they were split between majority non-white districts, instead of having their own districtsThis was to spread out the non-white majority population among districtsSlide4

United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg v. Carey (1977)

The population of Brooklyn then was about 65% white

But whites would control 70% of the seats in the legislative districts

Did the plan unfairly dilute the influence of the Hasidic and white population of the area?

Could the legislature use racial data in consideration of the drawing of districts?

How does this relate to the idea of proportional representation?Slide5

United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg v. Carey (1977)

How did the Court rule?

What does it mean when it say the “judgment of the Court” vs. the “opinion of the Court”

Was it alright to use race to enhance minority representation vs. to dilute it?

Why would a 52% non white district be problematic for minority representation?

What is racial bloc voting?Candidate of choiceSlide6

United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg v. Carey (1977)

Brennan

Why is he concerned about segregating districts by race?

Coalition building

Suspect classifications

 reverse discriminationIs the Hasidic community deserving of its own representation?Or do whites still have adequate representation?Racial fillersBurger, C.J.Does he think that only people of one race can adequately represent that group or the opposite?Slide7

Vote Dilution

What are some ways to dilute minority voting strength?

Multi-member districts

At-large elections

Manipulation of electoral lines

CrackingPackingPopulation malapportionment Lack of redistrictingUse of lower voting areas to make a minority majority districts (non-citizen, prisoner)Slide8

But when to create a Minority-Majority District?

The Court struggled with this in

City of Mobile v. Bolden

(1980)

The

Court found that discriminatory intent was requiredIt involved a challenge to at-large election of City CommissionersSystem in place since 1911No blacks elected since the city was majority whiteBut with a substantial black minorityCourt precedent had been inconsistent priorWhitcomb v. ChavisWhite v. RegesterSlide9

But Congress reverses the Court

In 1982, the VRA is renewed by Congress for an additional 25 years

Changed the intent/purpose (

Bolden)

to one of impact or effect

Due to some opposition from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and other Republicans, Sen. Robert Dole (R-Kansas) put in the provision on proportionalitySometimes can show intentBusbee v. Smith (D.D.C. 1983)To draw a black majority seat in Atlanta"I don't want to draw ni**er districts”Said by the chair of the Reapportionment CommitteeSlide10

North Carolina House Districts

The

Gingles

involved multi-member House districts in Mecklenburg (8), Wake (6), Forsyth (5), and Durham (3)*, Rocky Mount area (4) and Senate districts 22 (4)- Charlotte and 2 (2) Eastern NC

*Court found Durham blacks had PRSlide11

How to interpret the effect test

Easy cases get resolved quickly

Major v. Treen

Mississippi Republican Executive Committee v. Brooks

Another note

Parties not a protected class under the VRA- Quilter v. VoinovichCandidate of choice!The choice for minority voters may be a white candidateNew Orleans, Memphis, Atlanta, Newark, DetroitBill de Blasio- blacks may choose a white candidate over a black oneBlacks do not choose Republican black over a Democrat whiteSlide12

The Gingles

Test- Prong #1

1) Sufficiently large and geographically compact

How large?

VAP, CVAP, super-majorities (65% rule-

United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg v. Carey)?Bartlett v. Strickland seems to set it at majority VAPRacial differences in VAP, registration, turnoutWhat about influence and coalition districts?How compact?The Shawn v. Reno line of casesSlide13

The Gingles

Test- Prong #2

2) The minority group shows they are politically cohesive

Members of the minority group usually vote for the same candidates

Blacks vote 90%+ Dem

But cohesive to the same party or something else?Blacks in Harlem vs. Dominicans in Washington Heights vs Puerto Ricans (Rangel seat)Both heavily Dem, but they tend in primaries to vote for the candidate of their ethnicityCultural cohesive as well?LULAC- Hispanics in Rio Grande Valley different from those in AustinNavajo and Hopi tribesCoalition districts not requiredCan you add minority groups together?

Miami-Dade County- Cubans and blacks vote different ways

Black voters- “think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls is offensive and demeaning”

Shaw v. RenoSlide14

The

Gingles

Test- Prong

#3

3) White Bloc Voting

Does the white majority vote sufficiently as a bloc to enable e them to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidateThink of the McDonald/Engstrom scatter plot of NorfolkNo need to prove racial animositySomething to considerEarly cases often took place in the one party South or Democratic dominated cities (Karlin), but the GOP has risen in the SouthGrofman from the District CourtThe court found that in all but 2 of the 53 elections the degree of racial bloc voting was so marked as to be substantively significant, in the sense that the results of the individual election would have been different depending upon whether it had been held among only the white voters or only the black voters.

L

ess than 50% of the white voters cast a ballot for the black candidate.

People tend to elect candidates like themselvesSlide15

Example of racially polarized votingSlide16

In the next round of redistricting

An unusual pair

Black Democrats and White Republicans join forces

Bush (41) Justice Department and “max black”

An effort to create as many black majority seats as possible

Why is this problematic overall for Democrats in general?BleachingThe result is a massive increase in minority representation in Congress and in other legislative chambersBut the losers were White DemocratsSlide17

But how much can we use race?

Shaw v. Reno

(1993)

Strict scrutiny applies when redistricting is based on race

Compelling state interest

Narrowly tailoredLeast restrictive meansO’Connor refers to districts as “racial apartheid”But in North Carolina, blacks were about 23% of population, but still only held 18% of seatsSlide18

What else happens? Strangely shaped districts overturned- LouisianaSlide19

TexasSlide20

GeorgiaSlide21

FloridaSlide22

New YorkSlide23

Illinois- This one was upheld

Was the Least Restrictive MeansSlide24

Where does the Court settle?

Eventually the Court lets up on these districts

So long as they are not really strangely shaped

Race has to be the predominant factor to overturn-

Miller v. Johnson

(1995)And subordinated traditional redistricting criteriaEasley v. Cromartie (2000)Court eventually upholds a Charlotte to Winston-Salem seatRacial correlation with political behavior so can one draw odd shaped lines for political purposes?Conjoined polarizationSlide25

Johnson v. DeGrandy (1995)

Challenge to Legislative Districts in Miami-Dade County

Plaintiffs showed that more minority majority districts could be drawn than were drawn

District Court held they met

Gingles

criteriaShould there be more districts drawn?How did the Court rule?Why did they rule that way?Slide26

Later Racial Gerrymander Issues

A major issue when Republican start drawing lines is over-packing minority voters

Can one overconcentration minority voters where it becomes a vote dilution issue or 14

th

Amendment issue?

Personhuballah v. Whitman (2016)Virginia Case- 57% BlackCooper v. Harris (2017)North Carolina casesSlide27

Political Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering is for Elbridge Gerry

The practice of manipulating lines for electoral advantage goes back a long time too

This district in Massachusetts

Computer technology has greatly enhanced the ability to gerrymander Slide28

Davis v. Bandemer

The Court considered political gerrymandering in 1986 in a case from Indiana

Plaintiffs alleged Equal Protection harm under the 14

th

Amendment

The Court held it was justiciable, but could not agree on a standardBy the end of the decade, Democrats won control of the Indiana House and 8/10 US House seatsO’Connor said gerrymanders were “self-limiting”Slide29

Vieth and

LULAC

The Court tackled the issue in 2004 and in 2006

This time a 5-4 majority ruled the issue justiciable, but could still not agree on a standard

However, Kennedy seemed open to some type of symmetry test

He had a problem using hypothetical electionsThe Court found Pennsylvania and Texas to not be political gerrymandersDems win a majority of PA seats in 2006 and 2008Slide30

Vote/Seat CurveSlide31

So let’s play a game… In Syracuse

The city of Syracuse is

64% Anglo

25% Black

Five districts- neutral draw (%black)

1 (blue) 43%2 (green) 33%3 (purple) 22%4 (red) 19%5 (yellow) 7%Slide32

But let’s follow Gingles

(maybe)

I don’t think any of these districts look visually bad

But we change the racial breakdown

1 (blue) 16%

2 (green) 55% (51% VAP)3 (purple) 26%4 (red) 23%5 (yellow) 18%Slide33
Slide34