Archive 3 - Oldest racial gerrymandering news stories

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

The boundaries of Chicago’s 18th Ward had previously been racially gerrymandered into a complex, elongated, and strange shape in order to encompass as many black voters as possible. The theory was that such a 'majority minority ward' would thus be able to elect "one of their own color" as alderman.

But it didn't work out that way! Even though this unnaturally shaped ward contained a majority of blacks, 18th ward voters re-elected a white Irish alderman, Mr. Thomas Murphy! In this democratic, machine-politics city the voters recognized that the guy who got their streets paved, their trash hauled, built two new schools as well as a library was their man, regardless of his color. Was this a defeat for racial gerrymandering? (Washington Post, Sat., Feb. 27, 1999, page A03, by Jon Jeter)
[former link *http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-02/27/153l-022799-idx.html]

Louisiana (Bossier Parish):
Supreme Court Rebuffs Clinton Justice Department Campaign To Racially Gerrymander Local Voting Districts (05/12/97)

Washington, D.C.-- "The Supreme Court today sharply limited the ability of the Department of Justice to coerce local governments to racially gerrymander districts. In the case of Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, Justice O'Connor declared that the DOJ may no longer use the pre-clearance provision of the Voting Rights Act routinely utilized by former civil rights division head Deval Patrick to force local jurisdictions to artificially maximize the number of minority districts.

"According to today's decision, DOJ may not deny pre-clearance solely because the new voting plan fails to maximize the number of minority voting districts. Instead, the DOJ may block a proposed voting plan only if it manifests an discriminatory intent to "retrogress." In practice, this means that so long as a new districting plan maintains the existing number of minority voting districts, it will receive pre-clearance.

"Attorney Michael Carvin of the Cooper & Carvin, who argued the case on behalf of Bossier Parish, stated, "We are gratified that the Court has effectively ended the Clinton Justice Department's efforts to force localities to racially gerrymander under the Voting Rights Act. We are confident that the District Court will promptly clarify the remaining points that must be settled on remand."

"Michael P. McDonald, President of the Center for Individual Rights, a D.C. based public interest law firm which represented Bossier Parish, said "Today's decision in Bossier is a repudiation of the DOJ's strong-arm tactics, and demonstrates that once again the Clinton Administration's race conscious policies are out of step with the law."

"The case arises from voting map changes in Bossier Parish, a district in northwestern Louisiana, following the 1990 census. In 1993, the Bossier Parish school board submitted a race-neutral plan, identical to one earlier approved by the DOJ. This time, DOJ denied pre-clearance on the basis of a new, alternate plan proffered by the NAACP which would have maximized the number of majority-minority districts. A three judge district court heard Bossier's appeal, and determined that its voting plan did not have a discriminatory purpose or retrogressive result, and that Bossier was thus entitled to pre-clearance for its race neutral plan under the Voting Rights Act." (Center for Individual Rights, 05/12/97)
[link http://www.wdn.com/cir/bosspr1.htm ]

North Carolina (U.S. Supreme Court):
N.C. Racial Gerrymandering Gets Another Chance (05/18/99 - dead link)

"The Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that judges must look deeply into the evidence before deciding that state lawmakers have unconstitutionally used race as a major factor in drawing districts.

"On the eve of another round of political redistricting which will follow the 2000 census, the justices made it harder for lower courts to summarily strike down election districts that concentrate African American and other minority voters.

"The justices reversed a decision by a three-judge lower court invalidating a North Carolina district. They said that because the panel had not held a hearing on the evidence, it had not adequately determined the motive of state lawmakers, who contended that the borders of the state's 12th Congressional District were drawn primarily for political reasons.

"In this closely watched voting rights case, the state had argued that it wanted to keep the 12th District Democratic and to help guarantee the reelection of Rep. Melvin Watt, a Democrat who is black and who was first elected to the House in 1992 after the state carved out a heavily black district. (The district's boundaries have been repeatedly challenged as racial gerrymanders, and yesterday's case marked its third time at the high court.)" (Washington Post 05/18/99, page A08, by Joan Biskupic)
[former link *http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-05/18/073l-051899-idx.html]

Related / Analysis:

Court Gives Wriggle Room to Racially Drawn Districts (05/18/99)
WASHINGTON -- "Revisiting a much-disputed North Carolina congressional district Monday, the Supreme Court ruled with surprising unanimity that even a conscious concentration of black voters did not automatically make a district unconstitutional as long as the state's primary motivation in drawing the district might have been political rather than racial.

"The court overturned a judgment won last year by a group of white voters who challenged the latest version of North Carolina's 12th Congressional District as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The case will now go back to a special three-judge federal district court in Raleigh with instructions to take account of the state's evidence that it wanted to create a district of loyal Democrats, many of whom happened to be black.

"The plaintiffs were allied with the white voters whose challenge to an earlier and more heavily black version of the same district led in 1993 to the Supreme Court's Shaw vs. Reno decision, which opened the door to strict and -- until now -- invariably fatal judicial scrutiny of districts drawn as part of an effort to enhance black political representation.

"Justice Clarence Thomas' decision for the court Monday in no way disavowed Shaw vs. Reno or the four cases that followed it, striking down majority black districts in Georgia and Texas as well as in North Carolina. Rather, Thomas said, those cases had limits: Plaintiffs retain the burden of proving that race was, impermissibly, "the predominant factor" in drawing district lines, and lower courts are not free to ignore, as this one did, evidence of other permissible motivations.

"Monday's decision, Hunt vs. Cromartie, No. 98-85, was essentially a set of instructions to the lower-court judges who will be hearing similar challenges following the 2000 census. Thomas appeared to go out of his way to make clear that simple consciousness of race among district line-drawers is not, by itself, enough to invalidate a district. Lower court judges misunderstand the Supreme Court's recent precedents if they think the court has instructed them to root out any use of race, Thomas said." (New York Times 05/18/99 by Linda Greenhouse)
[former link **http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/scotus/articles/051899congress-districts.html]

Ohio (Cincinatti):
Court Will NOT Allow Racial Gerrymandering! (04/14/99 - dead link)

"Ohio's system of electing judges on a countywide at-large basis does not discriminate against blacks, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. In a unanimous decision, the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld last year's ruling by Judge George C. Smith of the U.S. District Court in Columbus.

"[Judge] Smith said the countywide system is "based solely on geography and not on population or the racial composition of the population'' and many factors, such as incumbency, party affiliation, endorsements and name recognition, override race in determining who is elected. Former state Rep. William Mallory of Cincinnati and 11 other former and current black elected officials filed suit Oct. 25, 1994, contending the at-large elections discriminate against blacks in Franklin County and the state's seven other most populous counties.

"The suit sought to have counties divided into districts so that the majority of voters in some districts would be black to assure that more blacks are elected to county appeals, common pleas, domestic relations and municipal courts.

"In denying the suit, [Judge] Smith issued a 146-page opinion listing blacks who have been elected to state, city and county offices in at-large elections, including 11 of 18 black candidates who sought judgeships in Franklin County from 1977 to 1996. The appeals court, in a much briefer decision, extolled Smith's "carefully written, solidly reasoned, and extremely comprehensive opinion.'' (Columbus Dispatch 04/14/99 by James Bradshaw)
[former link *http://www.dispatch.com/pan/localarchive/judgesnws.html]

END Racial Gerrymandering Archive 3: OLDEST Stories.