2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Guide to the Philosphical Debate Over Majority Minority Districts, December 25, 2006
This review is from: The Appearance of Equality: Racial Gerrymandering, Redistricting, and the Supreme Court (Contributions in Legal Studies) (Hardcover)
If Barrack Obama is elected President, the whole issue of majority minority districts that this book focuses on may seem to be very quaint, but right now the question of the legal controversies surrounding the creation of majority minority is one of the legal topics legislative redistricters and their lawyers must master. Reading this book is like attending a long seminar at a highly ranked law school on this subject.
The simple fact underlying this book is that in many areas of our country it is very difficult if not impossible for a candidate who is the choice of minority communities--often but not always a minority himself or herself--to get the votes of enough white voters to win an election. The author of this book repeatedly agrees with this truism, but also expresses concerns about the effects of grouping minority voters together to maximize their political clout.
I first read this book in 2001, when I was navigating my way through the political and legal landmines of redistricting state house seats for the majority minority city of Philadelphia. I found author Christopher M. Burke's interweaving of Supreme Court cases, law journal articles, and numerous books to be an extrememly valuable guide to understanding the somewhat conflicting case law, being able to explain it to others, and being able to act both legally and effectively to serve public interests.
Rereading this book recently, I am struck at the depth of the author's research and passsion for this rather obscure subject. This is not the book to read for an in-depth political look at majority minority districts, and it is not the book to read to gain insights into their changing nature, the changing nature of the Black Caucus in the U.S. Congress and other legislative bodies. Nor is it the book to read if one wants to compare the growth of black and Latino representation in Congress--both covered by the Voting Rights Act--with the growth in Congress and other legislative bodies of Asians, Jews, Americans of Italian descent, and women, none of whom are covered by the Voting Rights Act.
What this book does far better than any other that I have come across is to give the reader a well-sourced, well-researched sense of the debate over majority-minority districts. The politics of this issue are confused, because the ideological sympathies of the Democratic Party and the national political interests of the Republican Party on one side are engaged in battle with the ideological sympathies of the Republican Party and the national political interests of the Democratic Party on the other side.
To make sense of this confusion, the author wisely reframes this question as a contest between philosophical liberals--who may be politically liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican--and philopsophical communitarians, who also may be politically liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican. Philosophical liberals are those focused on individual rights, while communitarians are those focused on group rights.
Justices and other actors have demonstrated an ability to strike both liberal and communitarian chords, the author makes clear.
The key case in majority minority jurisprudence, the author accurately states, is Shaw vs. Reno, 125 L.Ed 2nd 511,113 S.Ct.2816 (1993)(Shaw I). In this case, Justice O'Connor, writing for a divided Court, declined to ban the creation of majority-minority districts where alternatives existed, but banned redistricters from allowing a concern for the creation of majority minority districts to overshadow all other concerns. Majority minority districts could be created as part of drawing districts for incumbents, or as part of another general approach, but not as a goal in and of itself.
Districting, O'Connor said, "seeks to represent a plurality of values...."
She attacked geographically distant majority minority districts, warning of "an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid."
Half of this book focuses on Shaw vs. Reno and the subsequent cases that it controlled. Before reading Shaw vs. Reno and its progeny, it is good to read this book to gain a heightened awareness of the issues at stake.
Although the author has the law professor's habit of continually stating opposition views to whatever case he is discussing, he makes clear his symphathy is with the Shaw Court's views. But those read this book for the purpose of gaining a full understanding of the issues will benefit from his thorough treatment of the case law and the philosophies behind it, even if they disagree with his ultimate conclusions.
It is a short book that could have been shortened even more by more thorough editing. But the repetitions do serve the purpose of drilling in the author's key conclusions.
There are no natural redistricting plans waiting to found, he says. There is no redistricting plan than will be universally seen as fair, with all winners and no losers, he says.
Communities are created by redistricters and not discovered, he says. There are legitimate pros and cons for the creation of more majority districts, and pros and cons for not creating more minority districts, he says. The lawyers on all sides, he warns, are political actors. Those involved in the redistricting process, he says, have no choice but to fully study the issues and make and defend political decisions that are as wise as possible.
Each election, he warns, will bring new facts and new court decisions to the table. The process of creating political districts--majority minority or not--is an inherently temporary one. The issues will with be us for a long time.
One thing he does not consider in this 1999 book is what happens if the political dynamic changes so radically that African-American candidates start repeatedly carrying predominantly or overwhelmingly white districts.
He undoubtedly did not consider that because he did not consider it possible, although he notes that African American incumbents in Georgia, forced by the Supreme Court to run in predominantly white districts, were re-elected.
But he makes clear that the perceived need for majority minority districts is based on the peceived permanency of racially polarized voting patterns. The death of these racially polarized voting patterns--if it occurs under Obama or someone else and subsequent candidates--would obviously throw this whole issue into confusion and marginal significance.
With nearly 50 pages of footnotes, citations of 63 Law Review articles, 96 books, and 72 cases, the author cannot be faulted for laziness. His calls for intelligent and informed political involvement, and thinking through the elements of the issues that have deeply divided both political parties and the and federal courts, are well worth following.
He could have shorter paragraphs, and less philosophical jargon. But he offers a valuable guide to the uncertainties of a contested area of the law, and does it by a thorough study of the the public record and scholarly sources. Those interested in navigating through contradictions, questions, temporary fixes, rhetorical strategies, philosphical debates along with normal case law will find this book to be highly useful and informative.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
