GERRYMANDERING 2011 STYLE

Gerrymandering 2011 Style

By

Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

The bipartisan Washington State Congressional Redistricting Commission has drafted the state voting district map to include the first ever “Majority-Minority Voting District”.  From the beginning of the redistricting process activist individuals and Hispanic groups (ACLU, One America, Paul Opostolidis, Aaron Case) lobbied persistently for the creation of such a district.  The new 9^th Congressional District has, according to Baker, “slightly less than 50 percent white mainly due to large blocs of Asians and blacks”.  (Baker, Mike “10^th Congressional District creates swing seat”, Yakima Herald Republic, December 29, 2011, p. 5A)

When a congressional voting district is drawn to create a district in which “large blocs of Asians and blacks” are a majority and where “slightly less than 50% [are] white” the result is racial gerrymandering that creates political apartheid in its rawest and most odious form.  Racial gerrymandering was an anathema when used to “pack” or “crack” the Black vote.  In fact the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed partially to prohibit the development of political apartheid by manipulating the boundaries of congressional voting districts.  Given that track record, I must ask two questions: “Why is it OK today to create majority-minority districts that result in a reverse form of political apartheid?” and, “Is race the most important characteristic of a political candidate as promoted by the drawing of majority-minority voting districts?”

There appears to be no question in the minds of the Redistricting Commissioners about the appropriateness of creating majority-minority districts.  The Yakima Herald Republic (Faulk, Mike, Debate over 15^th “District boundaries slows process”, December 30, 2011, p. B1 and p. B3) reported “Both [commissioners] agree the 15^th District be Latino” by either 60% or slightly in the majority.

It looks like Latino and other political activists (One America, United for Full Representation, Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Empowerment, National Voting Rights Advocacy Initiative, Win/Win Organization, Cheryl Cayabyab (APACE), Tony Sandoval (Yakima County Democratic Chairman)) and the Redistricting Commissioners aim to reinvent the wheel by focusing on race as a legitimate means to promote reverse discrimination.  I am unaware of empirical data that supports the position that all members of a minority, or a majority, group vote in lock step fashion.  One of the main foci of the civil rights movement was to abolish seeing individuals as members of any race, but rather as human beings each with different attitudes, political philosophies, desires, needs, and economic status regardless of the community in where they live.

Even if empirical data exist to support such a position, Shields argued that since the 1990’s “gerrymandering based solely on racial data has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, first in Shaw v. Reno (1993) and subsequently in Miller v. Johnson (1995)”.  See: http://www.drury.edu/ess/irconf/MShields.html.

If racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional when it is used to inhibit voting rights of a specific group, why is it not equally unconstitutional when used to promote voting influence by a specific group or groups.  Putting the question of legality aside, gerrymandering by race is poor public policy given the combustible nature of the illegal alien controversy between federal and state governments.

The United States no longer is a “melting pot where immigrates become one with Americans of all races and nationalities.  Rather the United States is becoming a multicultural and multinational nation of various national and religious groups who expect citizens to accommodate their national and religious customs and beliefs, including national symbols and laws, even when they conflict with the customs, beliefs, symbols and laws of American citizens.

The creation of majority-minority districts by racial gerrymandering is a major mistake that will exacerbate this tension with potentially serious results.  Let us hope that these obvious politically based decisions, or lack of decisions, by the Redistricting Commissioners will be modified by wiser heads in the State Legislature as Article 2, Section 7 states: “(7) The legislature may amend the redistricting plan but must do so by a two-thirds vote of the legislators elected or appointed to each house of the legislature. Any amendment must have passed both houses by the end of the thirtieth day of the first session convened after the commission has submitted its plan to the legislature. After that day, the plan, with any legislative amendments, constitutes the state districting law.”

Reinventing the wheel by using Racial Gerrymandering to promote social policy has no place in 2011, or henceforth.   After all, we are not hyphenated-Americans with multiple national loyalties.  We are proud Americans loyal to one nation, one flag and one oath of allegiance.