Swing State Project doesn’t usually work the Supreme Court beat, but today the Supremes issued probably this year’s most significant opinion concerning SSP’s meat and potatoes: redistricting, the Voting Rights Act, and, ultimately, the composition of the House. The news isn’t good: in a party-line 5-4 decision (plurality authored by Justice Kennedy), the court held that the VRA does not require the creation of new districts that are intended to elect a minority representative (‘crossover’ or ‘coalition’ districts) but where that minority does not actually constitute 50% of the district’s population.
Now, there’s one key detail that makes this not as dire as it first sounds. Kennedy made it clear that state legislatures may still create a district that has less than 50% of a particular minority even if the intent of the district is to elect a minority representative (via a coalition of various minorities, or minorities plus liberal whites). It is simply not required as a remedy under the VRA in response to previous instances of vote dilution. However, the federal government cannot compel the creation of such a district. (Unless, as DavidNYC pointed out, Congress steps into the fray and rewrites VRA section 2. That may be too much of a political football to take on right now, though.)
Bartlett v. Strickland stems from a 2007 North Carolina Supreme Court decision, where the NC court struck down a district that was 39% African-American, created with the intention of electing an African-American, on the grounds that the district violated state law by unnecessarily crossing county lines. Civil rights groups appealed, saying that such coalition districts help to reduce racial polarization by requiring minority candidates to receive at least some backing from white voters.
This just serves to underscore the importance of control of state legislatures (and gubernatorial seats) coming out of the 2010 elections. We could see very different re-districting results coming out of, say, North Carolina, where we will probably control the trifecta (and are thus likely to see, say, NC-08 and NC-13 made safer by additions from safely minority-majority NC-12), as opposed to the GOP majority in Georgia, where we could see unfavorable tinkering with the south Georgia seats (for instance, a worse hand dealt to Jim Marshall in GA-08 as black percentages in GA-02 and GA-12 are boosted back over the 50% mark).
UPDATE (David): It turns out that Justice Ginsburg agrees with me. From her dissent (PDF, p. 47):
Today’s decision returns the ball to Congress’ court. The Legislature has just cause to clarify beyond debate the appropriate reading of ยง2.
The VRA should be revised immediately.
In some areas it can help the Democrats. You don’t want racially polarized districts that are designed so that an African-American will almost always get the nomination but can never win the general.
On the other hand you don’t want in the name of creating a minority district that will in the name of always nominating a minority tries to sweep up every last African-American to as few districts as possible to make the rest of the state Republican. Best example of this is the often bizarre Florida district map.
Dissapointing that the Supreme Court would specifically say a “goldilocks” solution wouldn’t as common sense dictates be required.
my understanding is that “minority-majority” districts have been almost uniformly bad for democratic representation in the US congress allowing southern states to move their minority populations into few overwhelmingly democratic districts and leaving the majority southern districts solidly GOP.
you say the ruling says that “the VRA does not require the creation of new districts that are intended to elect a minority representative.” while it might reduce the number of minority reps, it may add democratic reps, which will enhance the power of minority reps (just ask conyers and wrangel). so what’s the negative for us?
While the 42% noted by Crisitunity makes sense, I believe the decision works in our favor.
There are a number of states where the maximum number of minorities were squeezed into just a few districts. Yes, it ensured the election of more minorities, but at a bigger overall cost.
The big example is the Delay redistricting in Texas, ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2…
I am really torn on this whole issue of districts deliberately created to ensure minority reps. In Ohio, I feel that the GOP has used this concept as a ploy in their hideous overall gerrymandering of our state.
I feel as if they wind up creating “representatives for life.” I REALLY don’t like that. Sometimes the Districts end up being represented by the spouse or offspring of the original Rep.
And does it seem as if too often, these reps are sort of “ethically challenged?” Competitive districts keep people in line.
BUT (and it’s a biggie) we DO NOT have anything like a “level playing field” in America. I will never forget working with a highly qualified African American candidate who’s defeat I can only attribute to white racism.
This is a toughie.
…it can also help us around other Midwestern cities in more Democratic areas, like Wisconsin and the Twin Cities, where Republican gerrymanders currently pack Democratic voters rather than crack them. In WI, Tim Ryan could easily be drawn out by giving him half of Milwaukee, including a lot of heavily black precincts. In MN (assuming 1-seat loss), we could stuff Repubs into one western twin-cities metro suburban/exurban district and carve up the urban core plus inner, bluer burbs of the metro into three solidly Dem districts for a 6-1 split of the state.
While we’re not going to have full control in PA, unless we cut a deal with Republicans allowing them to tighten their grip on State Senate in exchange for full control over the Congressional map, if we did, we could carve up Pittsburgh and its bluest neighbors in a map that would eliminate Tim Murphy’s PA-18.
In MI, we don’t have to worry at all about preserving minority strength in MI-05. That means we could use Flint to add Dem votes to a district like MI-08.
Indianapolis may too blue to crack if you use Obama ’08 numbers rather than Kerry ’04 numbers. Some cities are crackable, though: Cincy and Columbus come to mind.
The really bad thing about this decision is it gives Repubs in the South carte blanche to pack African Americans into 60%-plus black districtsb.
if they don’t have enough 50%+ minority districts to meet VRA standards? If so, that could have much more of an impact than simply stating that “crossover” districts are not required under the VRA.
Some may recall that after the 2003 Texas redistricting, Democrats challenged the chopping up of Martin Frost’s district 24, expending a lot of consulting fees trying to prove CD 24 ought to somehow be protected by the VRA.
The district had a mix of African-American, Hispanic, and Anglo voters and was securely Democratic at the time, but the Dems were trying to say that the African-American voters (based primarily on one significant election) actually controlled the Democratic primary and thus the seat, and that the district could not be broken up.
This was essentially the same argument made by the DOJ staffers who were looking at retrogression.
The trouble was the African-American percentage in the district was less than 25%, and the courts never saw fit to protect such a district for blacks. It seems they agreed with the idea that the VRA was intended to address racial injustice and not just to protect political affiliations