Mar 17 2008
Supreme Court to Rule on NC Minority Voting Rights
The Supreme Court will decide a case from North Carolina about legislative boundaries that could affect the ability of minorities to elect their candidates of choice.The court said Monday it will hear arguments this fall, meaning the case will be decided well in advance of the redrawing of political districts that will follow the 2010 Census.
The dispute involves North Carolina legislative districts in which black voters make up less than 50 percent of the population, but still are numerous enough to elect a black candidate.
The issue is whether such districts are protected by a provision of the federal Voting Rights Act. The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the landmark civil rights law does not apply to districts where a minority accounts for less than half the population.
I’m kind of torn on this one. On the one hand, I am adamantly opposed to gerrymandering, be it by political affiliations, race, religion, what ever. The voters should be choosing their representatives. The representatives should not be choosing their voters.
Then when I sit down and really analyze this I remind myself that the duty of an elected official is to represent and be a voice for their constituents. So that being the case, if a district is drawn in such a way that the majority of the residents are of one race or political affiliation, aren’t they then receiving fair representation as opposed to a district that is very mixed and polarized and the representative is elected by only a slim majority?
Thoughts?
Districts should be drawn with only general population numbers in mind, IMO, and the electoral chips should be allowed to fall wherever they may.
“aren’t they then receiving fair representation as opposed to a district that is very mixed and polarized and the representative is elected by only a slim majority?”
‘Fair’ has to be defined by the individual, but competitive districts force their representatives to defend their actions. When is the last time Mel Watt had to defend any one of his actions, even those that are surely the opposite the views of his constituents (homosexual marriage, for example)?