The Supreme Court struck down racial gerrymandering in Shaw v. Reno (1993) and Miller v. Johnson (1995).   What is it, and if its 'illegal' why is it still around?

Adversity.Net(tm)
For Victims of Reverse Discrimination

Racial Gerrymandering
Last Updated April 20, 2001

          Racial Gerrymandering.   However, by the time of the 1985 Supreme Court decision against political gerrymandering, the over-zealous affirmative action supporters had managed to entrench a tradition of racial gerrymandering which allowed electoral districts to be redrawn into bizarre shapes in order to create districts with a majority of minorities. The theory was that this process gave underrepresented minorities a chance to "elect their own" to office.

          The Supreme Court struck down this practice as unconstitutional in two landmark rulings: Shaw v. Reno (1993) and Miller v. Johnson (1995).  Jesse Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus tore their garments and fell to the ground, crying "but minorities will lose their representation in local, state and federal electoral bodies."

          But it didn't happen that way. Blacks and other minorities have done quite well in elections in the years following the Miller v. Johnson decision.

Why Does Racial Gerrymandering Continue?

          These "legacy" districts will have to be struck down one by one through judicial review (lawsuits) and/or specific legislative initiatives.  This is a tedious, cumbersome, and long-term project. 

          As long as democrats are in the White House, and as long as Republicans only barely hold a majority in Congress, it can be expected that no significant legislative remedy to this racist practice will be forthcoming.  Therefore, lawsuits (judicial review) will continue to be the dominant means of dismantling racially gerrymandered voting districts.

Additional Background:

           "Two of those districts were later struck down by the courts, on the grounds that the equal protection clause does not allow racial gerrymandering. Federal judges redrew the boundaries."  (Jacksonville.com / Florida Times-Union, 06/20/97)
[link http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062397/Monedit3.html ]

Illinois (Chicago):  Racial Gerrymandering Fails in Windy City (02/27/99)

The Chicago story has moved to:
http://www.adversity.net/special/gerrymander_3.htm#xxchicago_gerrymander

Good News On Race and Redistricting (12/03/96)
          "When the U.S. Supreme Court began invalidating race-based congressional redistricting plans in its landmark Shaw v. Reno (1993) and Miller v. Johnson (1995) decisions, virtually all commentators predicted a significant decline in the number of African Americans serving in Congress.

          "Supporters of deliberate racial gerrymandering typically denounced the decisions as likely to produce a permanent decimation of the Congressional Black Caucus (with his usual self- restraint, the Rev. Jesse Jackson predicted an "ethnic cleansing" of Congress).

           "That's not too surprising, since the legal and political rationale for race-based districting is that racially motivated white voters almost invariably vote as a bloc to deny office to black candidates. This behavior, the theory goes, would deny representation to black voters unless they are consolidated in districts where they can elect a House member without white votes.

          "If the first post-Miller election is any indication, it turns out the country does not have to choose between racially divisive gerrymandering or gross under-representation of African Americans. Although the courts forced reductions in the minority population percentages of black incumbents in four states (Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas), all of the affected incumbents won re-election (one, Cleo Fields of Louisiana, chose not to run)."   (Democratic Leadership Council, 12/03/96)
[link http://www.dlcppi.org/fax/961203.HTM ]

Racial Gerrymandering of Employment Tests

          This process involves altering employment and promotions exams to have a "minimal disparate impact on minorities".  Most often, this process involves the addition of subjective test criteria which are not related to technical job skills, such as "life experience" and "biographical data" (aka "bio-data").

          The underpinnings of "racial test gerrymandering" are based in the assumption that any test that excludes an individual based on literacy, school learning, cognitive skills, reasoning skills, mathematics, written communications, or academic achievement is inherently biased against certain racial groups. 

          Social scientists and psychologists who receive federal funding are encouraged by U.S. DOJ and the U.S. EEOC to develop complicated statistical formulas which manipulate the results of skill-based tests in order to "prove" that the tests have a disparate impact on so-called "disadvantaged" minorities.  "Psychometric testing" is one of the euphemisms used by the U.S. Department of Justice and the EEOC to describe this type of racial test gerrymandering. 

See Also:  Racial Gerrymandering of Employment Tests
          "Employment discrimination law and its aggressive enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice are based on the false assumption that, but for discrimination, all racial-ethnic groups would pass job-related, unbiased employment tests in equal proportion.

          "Unreasonable law and enforcement create pressure for personnel psychologists to violate professional principles and lower the merit relatedness of tests in the service of race-based goals. This article illustrates such a case by describing how the content of a police entrance examination in Nassau County, NY, was stripped of crucial cognitive demands in order to change the racial composition of the applicants who appeared to be most qualified. In the process, the test was rendered nearly worthless for actually making such determinations.

          "The article concludes by examining the implications of the case for policing in Nassau County, Congressional oversight of Justice Department activities, and psychology's role in helping its members to avoid such coercion."

Formal Title:   Racially Gerrymandering the Content of Police Tests to Satisfy U.S. Justice Department: A Case Study
by Linda S. Gottfredson
Department of Educational Studies
University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716
(302) 831-1650
FAX (302) 831-6058
gottfred@udel.edu
February 6, 1997
[link http://www.ipmaac.org/nassau/gottfredson3.html ]

END Racial Gerrymandering MAIN Page

Racial Gerrymandering
Archive 1: NEWER News