News: Supreme Court Ruling

[New Democracy]

Dear List - I forward to you this news release from CV&D

Don, of New Democracy at http://www.mich.com/~donald
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:25:39 -0400
Subject: NEWS: Supreme Court VRA Ruling / PR Bill

6/19/97

Fr:  Rob Richie, CV&D (http://www.igc.org/cvd/)
Re: Supreme Court VRA / Voters' Choice Act

The Supreme Court today rejected a challenge to Georgia's
current congressional map -- one drawn by a three-judge
federal court and one that reduced the number of black-majority
districts from three to one. Please see the AP news story below.

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has planned to respond
to the ruling in several ways. One response likely will be
introduction of a new version of her Voters' Choice Act. As
with the 1995 version, the bill will lift the single-member district
mandate imposed by Congress in 1967 on states for U.S.
House elections if and only if a state uses a proportional
voting system -- the effect would be to return to states the
option of using proportional systems.

Unlike the 1995 version, proportional systems in the 1997
bill will be defined by the principle of proportionality rather
than by specific systems (which were limited voting, cumulative
voting and preference voting in 1995). I will let you know
when the bill is actually introduced -- possibly later today
or tomorrow -- and the specific language of the bill.

As you probably know, the immediate impact of the district
changes on Georgia's black representativesin 1996  was
not as dramatic as some feared. John Lewis was not
challenged in his maintained black-majority district, while
Sanford Bishon and  Cynthia McKinney won in districts with
white-majorities. Three other black incumbents won
in districts with reduced numbers of black voters. The
following points are important to keep in mind, however:

* 1996 was a relatively strong year for Democrats --
the national vote percentages in House races went
from 52% Republican - 45% Democrat in 1994 to
a 49%-49% tie between Republicans and Democrats
in 1996. 1998 will probably be a different year, with
much lower voter turnout nationwide and potentially
less support for Democrats -- the party of a sitting
president in a second term traditionally has done
poorly in mid-term elections.

* Everyone was learning the new districts in 1996,
which were announced well into the election year.
An incumbent has obvious advantages in such a
race. Republicans didn't have as much time to
recruit strong candidates, analyze their potential
to win the in district and build a strong field
campaign. That will change in 1998.

* Cynthia McKinney's district (as with those represented
by Eddie Bernice-Johnson and Sheila Jackson Lee in
Texas and that rerpesented by Corrine Brown in Florida)
remain strongly Democratics districts despite their
reduced black populations. Note the following
statistics, with the candidate's winning percentage
and the percentage of Bill Clinton in the district.
Note further that a Republican probably does not
represent ANY House district in the country where
Bill Clinton received at least 64% of the vote (as he
did in McKinney's district) and probably fewer than
five Republicans represent districts  where he won
58% of the vote (as he did in Brown's district) -- meaning
that once they won their primaries (not surprising, given
their incumbent status), they were well-positioned to win:

        -  Cynthia McKinney, GA 4
            Clinton - 64.4%      McKinney - 58%

        - Corrine Brown, FL 3
           Clinton - 58.4%      Brown - 61%

        - Sheila J. Lee, TX 18
          Clinton - 73.0%      Lee - 77%

          Eddie B. Johnson, TX 30
          Clinton - 69.8%,     Johnson - 55%

           Sanford Bishop, GA 2
           Clinton - 49%          Bishop - 54%

Note that Sanford Bishop's district is by far the most
conservative of these redrawn districts. Still, it almost
exactly matches the results for Clinton nationwide -- a
classic swing district.  Perhaps not surprisingly, Bishop
is one of the most conservative black Democrats in the
House -- part of the Blue Dog coalition of mostly white
southern conseratvive Democrats, for example -- and
out-spent his opponent by a 2-1 margin in 1996. He
probably is quite vulnerable in 1998.

This is all to say that the truth is in between the
exaggerated claims some have made on the effect
of these rulings on black representatives ("the black
caucus will be able to meet in a taxi cab," etc) and the
near-certain spin we will hear in the next few days that
the 1996 elections show that American voters are now
colorblind and that candidates with strong black support
can win in white-majority districts. I hope that some
of you can use the above information to explain why
there still is a need for a Voting Rights Act in a
winner-take-all election system -- and why it just
may be time to challenge the winner-take-all system
itself to provide universally fair representation to
voters who participate.

Here is the news story on the decision.

June 19, 1997,     Court Hands Setback to Minorities

      WASHINGTON (AP) -- Delivering another blow to efforts aimed at
     maximizing the voting clout of racial and ethnic minorities, the
     Supreme Court today upheld a Georgia congressional redistricting
     plan that features only one majority-black district.

     By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled that the redistricting map drawn
     by a three-judge federal court is valid.

     In a series of rulings since 1993, the nation's highest court has
     disapproved of attempts by state legislators and local officials to
     draw districts to preserve or enhance minority candidates' chances
     to win. Today's decision continues that trend.

     In past rulings on congressional redistricting, a slim majority of
     justices has seemed intent on minimizing race as a factor in drawing
     election-district boundaries.

     Civil rights advocates had sought a congressional redistricting plan
     for Georgia's 11 congressional seats that would feature two or three
     majority-black districts.

     But writing for the court today, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said
     even if the court-drawn redistricting plan had contained an
     unacceptable population disparity ``the solution would not be
     adoption of the constitutionally infirm, because race-based, plans.''

     At the Justice Department's insistence after the 1990 census, the
     Georgia Legislature created a redistricting plan with three
     majority-black districts.

     But the Supreme Court struck down that plan in 1995, ruling that
     creation of the majority-black 11th District represented by Cynthia
     McKinney, a black Democrat, amounted to unlawful racial
     gerrymandering.

     The district connected black neighborhoods in Augusta, suburban
     Atlanta and Savannah by splitting counties and voting precincts.

     After the 1995 ruling, the constitutionality of the state's 2nd
     Congressional District, represented by black Democrat Sanford
     Bishop, also was challenged.

     A three-judge court in Georgia invalidated the 2nd District and left
     it to the state Legislature to adopt a new redistricting map.

     When the Legislature failed to deliver one, the three-judge federal
     court imposed its own. The court-drawn plan featured only one
     majority-black district -- the 5th represented by black Democrat
     John Lewis.

     Black voters and the Clinton administration then appealed to the
     Supreme Court.

     Meanwhile, the court-drawn plan was used for last November's
     elections. McKinney and Bishop were forced to run in newly drawn,
     majority-white districts and both incumbents won.

     Today's decision means the current congressional district map for
     Georgia can be used for elections in 1998 and 2000 -- unless changed
     by the Legislature.

     ``The task of redistricting is best left to state legislatures,''
     Kennedy wrote. ``Here, the legislative process was first distorted
     and then unable to reach a solution. The (lower) court was left to
     embark on a delicate task with limited legislative guidance.''

     He said the lower court ``was careful to take into account
     traditional state districting factors, and it remained sensitive to
     the constitutional requirement of equal protection of the laws.''

     Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and
     Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

     Justices Stephen G. Breyer, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and
     Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

     Writing for the four, Breyer said the lower court ``should have
     drawn boundaries so as to leave at least two majority-minority
     districts rather than one.''

     That's so, Breyer said, because the Georgia Legislature had
     articulated a preference for creating more than one majority-black
     district.

     The case is Abrams vs. Johnson, 95-1425 and 95-1460.