Racial Gerrymandering
Its Unconstitutional, But Thriving
Last Updated November 29, 2000

WASHINGTON -- The Clinton Department of Justice is suing a San Gabriel Valley, California water district for refusing to racially gerrymander their voting district in order to favor Latinos.

          Clinton's U.S. DOJ has alleged that the San Gabriel Valley water district has illegally "diluted" the voting strength of Latinos by configuring its legislative voting districts based on where the citizens happen to live, regardless of skin color.  The DOJ calls this discrimination.

          Clinton's Justice Department alleges that such a districting scheme favors "other sectors of the community" -- meaning, we presume, the Justice Department feels that Latinos should have their very own voting district, regardless of where they live in the geographic area.

          Bill Lann Lee, Bill Clinton's assistant attorney general for civil rights, maintains that the fact that Latinos in the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District have not been able to elect a Latino candidate constitutes de facto racial discrimination. 

          The LA Times reports "Though Latinos make up nearly half of the 791,000 voters in the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, no Latino candidate has been elected to the five-member board in the district's 40-year history, the U.S. Justice Department said. The department's lawsuit, filed Friday [July 21, 2000] in federal court in Los Angeles, blames the way district lines were drawn under a 1992 redistricting plan. None of the nine Latinos who have run for the board has won -- in part, the lawsuit alleges, because Latino voters don't constitute a majority in any of the district's five divisions."

          Inherent in Bill Lee's stated position is the flawed assumption that in America racial groups are somehow entitled to elect people of their own color.  This is a curious assertion on Lee's part, and Constitutional scholars have never been able to find any provision of the Constitution that confers such a race-based privilege on any group of immigrants.

          What's next?  A guarantee to religious groups that their chosen clerics will represent them in Congress based on their numbers in the general population? 

          Or perhaps the Bill Lann Lee's of the world will craft a federal guarantee that socialists, communists, conservatives, liberals, and independents should always have a proportional number of elected officials who hew to their political beliefs. 

          Perhaps we should have a federal guarantee that pro-lifers and pro-choicers must be proportionately represented in the U.S. Congress. 

          Or perhaps gun control advocates and "2nd Amendment" advocates should both be guaranteed proportional representation.

          DOJ's acting head of the Office of Civil Rights, Bill Lann Lee is fond of saying "My father was an Asian immigrant", as if that explains his pandering sensitivity to allegedly disenfranchised racial groups.

          In the gerrymandering lawsuit, Lee and the Justice Department offered the following self-serving justification for racially-gerrymandering the San Gabriel voting district:  "The Voting Rights Act guarantees that minority citizens have the opportunity for meaningful participation in the democratic process.  We feel [the] lawsuit will help bring down the barriers preventing the Upper District's Hispanic citizens from having an equal opportunity to elect representatives [of their own color, race, and ethnicity] . . . ."

          Thus, Bill Lann Lee has deliberately misconstrued the Voting Rights Act to mean that "meaningful participation of minorities" means that certain skin colors are guaranteed to have elected representatives who are the same skin color as they are.  Clearly, such a racist assumption was never embodied in the Voting Rights Act, and there is no provision anywhere in the U.S. Constitution which guarantees "proportional racial/ethnic representation."  

(Based upon the LA Times story 07/26/00)
[link http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20000726/t000070167.html ]

Center for Equal Opportunity Testifies Against Gerrymandering (09/22/99)

          Roger Clegg, general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, will testify on Rep. Mel Watts (D-NC) proposed legislation changing the way that U.S. Representatives are elected. Currently federal law calls for Representatives to be elected from single-Representative districts. H.R. 1173 would change this voting to allow at-large Representatives and state-wide cumulative voting.

          In his testimony, Mr. Clegg notes that the legislation is not only unwise but illegal if it is intended to advantage some racial groups over others. He also discusses the federalism concerns raised by moving away from district representation in favor of at-large elections and cumulative voting.

          During the Reagan and Bush administrations, Clegg served as a deputy in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

          The testimony of Mr. Clegg and other witnesses will begin at 2:00 p.m. in Room 2226 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

          The Center for Equal Opportunity is a nonprofit research and educational organization based in Washington, D.C. It focuses on civil rights issues nationwide.  Visit CEO's web site at www.ceousa.org for more information.   (Center for Equal Opportunity 09/22/99)
[link http://www.ceousa.org/pressreleases/current.html ]

U.S. Census Bureau Promotes Racial Gerrymandering - On Purpose!  (09/14/99)

          San Antonio Express-News original headline:  "Hispanics face losses if census miscounts" -- [The San Antonio Express-News attempts to stir up Hispanic fears of the loss of racially-targeted tax dollars if they don't fill out their census forms accurately.  The Express-News unquestioningly accepts the census' use of discriminatory racial data to deny equal tax benefits to all citizens without regard to race.]

          "Hispanics risk losing congressional seats and federal funds distributed through formulas if the 2000 census continues to miss minorities in South Texas and other regions with large Hispanic populations, a conference was told Monday.  "It goes from representation and redistricting to allocation of federal funds," Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D-San Antonio, told Latino leaders attending an issues conference sponsored by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute."  [Hey!  Didn't the Supreme Court outlaw racially gerrymandered voting districts?]

          "Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, said Hispanics could see increased representation in Congress.  "We have the chance to pick up a couple more Latino seats," Vegas said.  One of those seats could be in South Texas, where population growth could mean another congressional seat through [illegal racial] redistricting.

          "Gonzalez said that in addition to [racially gerrymandered] congressional seats, Hispanics are nationally poised to win more elections to state governments, city halls and school boards coast to coast."

          [If you believe in fair and equal apportionment of your federal tax dollars to all citizens without regard to race, why would you encourage anyone to fill in racial data on the Census 2000?  Editor]  (Based on the San Antonio Express-News 09/14/99 by Gary Martin.)
[link http://www.expressnews.com/pantheon/news-bus/mexico-world/1402btx_census_0914nz.shtml ]

DOJ Threatens to Create Racially Gerrymandered Voting Districts!  (08/22/99)

          SANTA PAULA, CA -- LA Times Headline:  "U.S. Probe Spotlights Small Town Ethnic Relations" -- "For the past year, the U.S. Department of Justice has been quietly investigating this city's electoral history after receiving a complaint that the system of at-large elections keeps Latinos off the City Council."  [Last time we checked, "at large election" means that all registered voters may vote for any candidate of their choice.  If the registered voters are indeed mostly Latino, why, then, haven't they voted their choices?  The DOJ probe blithely ignores this question.  Editor.]  

          "Nobody knows exactly what the government will do. But if it decides that minorities have been denied power in a city in which two-thirds of the 27,000 residents are Latino, it could sue to carve the 4.5 square miles into separate political districts."  That, of course, would be illegal according to Supreme Court rulings on the issue.

          "Although Latinos make up two-thirds of the population, they constitute considerably less than two-thirds of the U.S. citizens in the city.  Exactly what proportion are citizens is unknown."   According to the LA Times story, Ramon Rodriguez, a local Latino activist estimates that only 50% of the Latinos in Santa Paula are citizens of the U.S.  The Times quotes Mr. Rodriguez as saying that he doesn't think it matters. (!)

          "[T]he police chief and city clerk are Latino. The two local school boards are controlled by Latinos, who hold 3-2 majorities.  Some say these examples weaken the argument that Latinos lack political power in the city."

         "We're supposed to be one and the same," she [Connie Reed, a white businesswoman] said. "It shouldn't matter what race is in [office]. Something like this [DOJ probe] divides our town more than it's already divided."  (LA Times 08/22/99 by Margaret Talev)
[link http://www.latimes.com/excite/990822/t000074933.html ]

Florida Gerrymandering

[The following Florida stories clearly answer the question "Why is racial gerrymandering still around if the Supreme Court has banned it?"   In reverse chronology, these stories illustrate the political power of the pro-quota minority special interest lobby.  Witness how Florida Gov. Jeb Bush initially endorsed the settlement of a lawsuit eliminating racial gerrymandering in Florida and then, under threats from the minority lobby, he backed off.  Newest stories appear first.  Editor]

Florida (State):  [Gov. Jeb] Bush finds himself in racial duel (08/21/99 - dead link)
          "[Gov. Jeb Bush is] caught between maintaining his image as a minority- friendly, inclusive Republican, and placating his core conservative supporters. They tend to oppose both affirmative action and the racially engineered ``minority access'' legislative districts at issue in the lawsuit.

          "[A] lawsuit says that the minority-access districts, designed to make it easier for blacks and Hispanics to be elected to Congress, constitute illegal racial gerrymandering. 

          There is a convoluted "I said - they said" argument surrounding the lawsuit and its resolution.  Jeb Bush originally agreed to a settlement involving the disbanding of some racially gerrymanered districts.  But the minority special interests, eager for an opportunity to roust a Republican from office, and to maintain their special, unconstitutional privileges, have raised holy hell.  Now, Bush, ever eager to avoid the race-based threat of losing his tenuous backing among minority voters, is backpedalling like crazy.  As usual, justice and equality seem to be the likely victims of this political log rolling.

          And, the dispute comes at a time when the Florida Civil Rights Initiative (FCRI), is headed for the November 2000 ballot.   The FCRI seeks to end discriminatory race-based and gender-based preferences in state contracting and employment.  Poor Jeb just wishes it would all go away.   (Based on the Tampa Tribune story 08/21/99 by William March)
[former link **http://www.tampatrib.com/sections/mt082209.htm]

Florida (State):  Fla. Plan to Redraw Districts Falls Apart (08/20/99 - dead link)
          [In the liberal Washington Post's re-write of this Associated Press story, note the Post's statement that elimination of racial gerrymandering would make it more difficult for blacks to get elected to state office.  The Post also asserts that the gerrymandered districts "were designed to safeguard minority seats".  The Post neglects to mention that our Constitution promises color-blind treatment under the law without regard to race.   Furthermore, no where in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights was any provision made for providing race-based electoral representation.]

          TALLAHASSEE, Aug. 19—"A plan to redraw South Florida congressional districts in the wake of a lawsuit claiming the boundaries were designed to safeguard minority seats fell apart when Republican Gov. Jeb Bush dropped his support.

          "Critics said the plan would have reduced election chances for blacks and Hispanics. [Supporters took the legal high ground and pointed out that the plan would have restored constitutional protections against racial gerrymandering, as repeatedly ruled by the Supreme Court.]

          "On Monday, the state said it had reached a deal with Tom Fouts, whose lawsuit claims the drawing of the districts along racial and ethnic lines was unconstitutional. Fouts, who is white, earlier lost a state Senate race to a black incumbent.

          "The plan would have changed the boundaries and reduced the percentage of minority voters in districts now held by two black Democrats--Alcee L. Hastings and Carrie P. Meek--and a Hispanic Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, along with changes to five neighboring districts.

          [According to Associate Press, Lawyer David Paul Horan, who represents Fouts in this suit, said] "Anybody that's got a lick of sense would never believe that people who were running in racially gerrymandered districts would be totally happy with not running in illegally racially gerrymandered districts."  (Based on Washington Post's rewrite of the Associated Press story, as it was published 08/20/99 on page A16 of the Washington Post)
[former link **http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-08/20/069l-082099-idx.html]

Be sure to also see:   Florida Civil Rights Initiative News

END Racial Gerrymandering Archive 2: OLDER News Stories

Racial Gerrymandering
Archive 1: NEWER News