The first time Luis Gutierrez took me for a tour of his political turf we lunched, at his urging, not on arroz y gandules but on pierogis and kolacky at his favorite lunch counter just off Division Street. That told me Gutierrez realized the voters he wanted to put in his pocket were just as important as the ones who were already there.
He was the brand new alderman of the 26th Ward, the beneficiary of a federal court order that some wards be redrawn to boost Hispanic representation.
He is a congressman now, the beneficiary once again of favorable rulings from the court and the voters. His hold on his district seems secure, in part because he has been adept at reaching across ethnic constituencies.
Gutierrez could probably represent any Democratic district in the country. But face it–he is seen as an Hispanic congressman in a district that was drawn for the sole purpose of electing him, or someone like him.
Why else would a district take a big gulp of heavily Hispanic precincts on the Northwest Side, snake out west along a path no more than a few blocks wide until it touches the DuPage County border, turn around and follow forests and the Eisenhower Expressway–but avoid as many real people as possible–until it safely reaches the heavily Hispanic precincts of the Southwest Side?
This cuts to one of the messiest unresolved issues in American politics. Is it constitutionally permissable, and morally proper, to create congressional districts solely to promote minority representation?
Last month, a panel of federal judges decided that Gutierrez’ Rorschach test of a district met the standard. But it is a ruling written in sand. It will be appealed, and there is every reason to think that the U.S. Supreme Court will find that his district doesn’t cut it at all.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that race cannot be the predominant factor in crafting district boundaries without a compelling government reason. The court sort of hinted at what reasons would be compelling. This provided as much clarity on race and politics as Justice Potter Stewart once did on obscenity.
The Supreme Court might shed more light on its thinking when it rules later this year on remap cases out of Texas and North Carolina. But don’t count on it. In the meantime, remap follies have reached epic proportions.
In Georgia, everyone except Jimmy Carter’s barber seemingly has had a hand in drawing the lines. The legislature drew two maps, but the Justice Department rejected them. So the legislature drew a map that made the Justice Department happy, but it was shot down by the Supreme Court in that 5-4 ruling. When the legislature couldn’t agree on another map, federal judges drew one themselves. The American Civil Liberties Union challenged that map, but the Supreme Court a couple of months ago turned a deaf ear to the challenge.
Confused? So is everybody else.
Now keep this in mind. In just a few years, a new census count will set off another round of mapmaking, and a new round of court fights. It will be particularly delicate in Illinois because the state is likely to lose another congressional district.
Two certainties emerge from this mess. Racial gerrymandering isn’t serving well the people it is intended to serve, and the Supreme Court is heading, in fits and starts, toward abolishing it altogether.
Gerrymandering has modestly increased black and Hispanic representation in Congress, but at a cost. By packing blacks and Hispanics, traditionally Democrats, into certain districts, the Democratic hold on other districts has weakened. That contributed to the Democrats’ recent loss of control of the House for the first time in 40 years.
It has also contributed to a Balkanization of national and local politics. One result is that politicians who have little or no minority presence in their districts are less likely to show much concern for minority issues.
The only thing worse than continuing the Balkanization of politics fostered by gerrymandering would be a Supreme Court-ordered wholesale disenfranchisement of minorities.
That’s a very real possibility. The ridiculous lengths to which some states went to draw minority districts have given the Supreme Court the ammunition to force a halt. Even if the high court has a change of heart or membership, the deep divisions on the issue are likely to continue the legal uncertainty for years.
There’s a way to protect minority interests and avoid these wild gyrations in mapmaking.
The Center for Voting and Democracy, headed by former U.S. Rep. John Anderson, is promoting a whole different way of voting. Congressional districts would be greatly enlarged and several members would be elected from each district through “cumulative” voting.
Illinois used to choose the legislature that way, and the system contributed some of the smartest, most independent legislators the state has ever had. Since cumulative voting was abandoned, the legislature has become more partisan, mean-spirited and prone to blindly follow the demands of its leadership.
Cumulative voting works like this. If five members were to be elected from a district, voters would have five votes to cast. They could parcel them out as they wish: five votes for one candidate, one vote for five candidates, or some mix in-between.
Such a plan would recognize and reward ethnic and racial bloc voting, but rid the country of gerrymandering schemes that one federal court panel likened to “racial apartheid.”
And that would be a very healthy thing.
