State Racial Gerrymandering for Minority Candidates to Win Office

As you know there is probably no "post-racial politics" in the United States in spite of the election of Barak Obama to the White house. American law and jurisprudence is deeply racialized. In March of 2009 in Iowa "State government officials continue to deny African-Americans jobs and promotions despite being put "on notice" multiple times during the past few years, ..." according to the Des Moines Register. This has to do with how big the pool of minority applicats for positions must be to prove that ythere is no racial bias.

So, the following court case from North Carolina is interesting as it involves gerrymandering of districts (deliberately drawing certain boundaries and shapes) to achieve a racial minority-majority (premised on the idea that African Americans would vote for a black candidate over a white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American/American Indian or other candidate and that therefore a majority of black voters in a district is a reasonable and sound idea.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-689.pdf
US Supreme Court Syllabus

BARTLETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL. v. STRICKLAND ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 07–689. Argued October 14, 2008—Decided March 9, 2009

Despite the North Carolina Constitution’s “Whole County Provision” prohibiting the General Assembly from dividing counties when drawing its own legislative districts, in 1991 the legislature drew House District 18 to include portions of four counties, including Pender County, for the asserted purpose of satisfying §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. At that time, District 18 was a geographically compact majority-minority [majority black/African-American] district.

By the time the district was to be redrawn in 2003, the African-American voting-age population in District 18 had fallen below 50 percent. Rather than redrawing the district to keep Pender County whole, the legislators split portions of it and another county. District 18’s African-American voting-age population is now 39.36 percent. Keeping Pender County whole would have resulted in an African American voting-age population of 35.33 percent.

The legislators’ rationale was that splitting Pender County gave African-American voters the potential to join with majority voters to elect the minority group’s [i.e. African-American] candidate of choice, while leaving Pender County whole would have violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Pender County and others filed suit, alleging that the redistricting plan violated the Whole County Provision. The state-official defendants answered that dividing Pender County was required by §2.

The trial court first considered whether the defendants had established the three threshold requirements for §2 liability under Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 51, only the first of which is relevant here: whether the minority group “is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district.”

The [trial] court concluded that although African-Americans were not a majority of District 18’s voting-age population, the district was a “defacto” majority-minority district because African-Americans could get enough support from crossover majority voters to elect their preferred candidate. The [state trial] court ultimately determined, based on the totality of the circumstances, that §2 required that Pender County be split, and it sustained District 18’s lines on that rationale.

The State Supreme Court reversed [the trial court decision], holding that a minority group must constitute a numerical majority of the voting-age population in an area before §2 requires the creation of a legislative district to prevent dilution of that group’s votes. Because African-Americans did not have such a numerical majority in District 18, the [State Supreme Court] ordered the legislature to redraw the district.

Held [by the United States Supreme Court]: The judgment [of the State of North Carolina Supreme Court] is affirmed.

Note: This case does not ask if gerrymandered districts are constitutional or not and presumably they are legal. No "post racial" politics here.

Goverment - How Big? How Bad?

My students always ask "Is government good or bad?"

Now they are also asking "How big should government be?"

After half a century of Reaganomics and criticism of big government my students are really confused about why in 2009 government seems to be the only hope and solution to a collapsing nation.

I explain it this way.

If you want to buy stuff and consume products - any and all products - then the private sector is generally the most effective provider.

If you want to drive on paved roads, over safe bridges, be protected on that drive from bandits and roadside terrorists, and, at the end of your drive, have an airport with air traffic controllers, safe airplanes that have been inspected and that are safe then you need government. Tax cuts to consumers will NOT build and service any of these common goods. Without revenue, neither local, state, nor the federal government can provide these services.

Would private companies or "donations" build and maintain our military? No.

The same is true of education. We need excellent public schools and state universities and community colleges have been crucial to the United States becoming a wealthy and successful nation. Most students think they are paying the full cost of education in their tuition. When I tell them about half or more is subsidized by government they are shocked.

I asked my students what parts of the 2009 Obama budget they liked. Of course, more education spending and student loans were immediately chosen.

Then I asked them how government can afford these - "Don't they need taxes to pay for all of this?" - they were stumped.

I then asked them if banks and mortgage companies should be regulated and their actions scrutinized by government. Even the Republican students in my class said (reluctantly) that it was a mistake to allow them to operate with so little oversight over the past decades.

One student brought up the lack of peanut butter inspection and said government (not private companies hired by the Peanut Company of America) should have been doing these inspections.

"You can't trust business Because they need to cut expenses and show a profit so the less regulation the more they like it."

Another brought up poisoned pet food, toothpaste, and lead painted toys from China and said the government should have had more vigorous inspections.

Another student said Iowa should have had serious and aggressive inspection of living quarters for workers such as the mentally retarded men (at a commercial turkey farm) who were housed for years in an unheated building, with locks on the outside doors, and got paid $95 a month.

In my American government classes this discussion, carefully conducted, can be one of the most rewarding and intelligent. My advice - bring it down to tangible and familiar examples.

1. There is a need to support and maintain a vigorous private sector and give people as much money back from their income as possible.

2. There is a critical need for governments at all levels to develop and maintain high quality services that make life good and make commerce possible so we need taxes and fees. These are not an option.

The Rushification of the GOP

Rush Limbaugh is today the only "national leader" the Republican party has.

I have talked to two dozen of my best former students, all of whom are now big shots in the GOP and they all agree with my analysis.

Newt Gingrich is the intellectual guru but he lacks charisma and he's never run anything, balanced a budget, or hired and fired people so the work on the street is that it's gonna be a governor.

Louisiana Governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal was the "Great Brown Hope" but he's turned out to be, as one DC "insider" calls him the "Slumdog Governor' (Jindahls family is from India). (Barak "Hussein" Obama suffered from GOP mockery of his middle name and I know several Democrats who call this governor Piyush which is actually his real name. Ain't politics wonderful and cruel!) The truth of the matter is that Slumdog is a compliment - the movie was about heroes who overcome odds and do some wonderful things!

Former Massachusetts governor and businessman Mitt Romney is the "Bidness Solution" together with Mayor Bloomberg of New York, but right now bankers and corporate downsizers are not such a good flavor.

Alaska Governor Sara "Ma" Palin was a temporary wonder who is having all kinds of problems in Alaska and will be bruised and a badly damaged good.

Then there are the other "Midgets in the Woodwork" (one of my best graduates - She's now a GOP political consultant in Seattle) - Gov. Pawlenty of MN, Huckabee, Anti-immigrant Tom Tancredo of Colorado, former NYC Mayor Rudi Giuliani who's still tasting it. How about Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas? Oh yeah there is a household name!

Texas Representative Ron Paul is interesting and certainly has a passionate base and a lot of money.

So why is Rush Limbaugh the leader of the GOP?

1. Because the GOP is so divided Rush is the only clear voice.
2. Because that's the Democrat's strategy

With Rush as the sparring partner the GOP is forced to shift its forces to the fart right front lines and dig their trenches there. Listen to Rham Emmanuel, Pres. Obama and other leading Democrats and you will see that they are aiming their artillery at Rush. Look at what the GOP leaders are forced to do - swing behind El Rushbo or they get spanked!

This will be one of the wildest and most interesting four years until the 2012 presidential election!