Jack Salzman, Cornel West Struggles in the Promised

332 // THEODORE H. SHAW
ues to dominate Louisiana politics is not the exception in the South; it is the rule.
Nor is racially polarized voting strictly a Southern phenomenon. Only two of the
forty African American members of the 104th Congress were elected from majority
white districts; in the Twentieth Century only two African Americans have
served in the U.S. Senate. Are African Americans who seek the creation of a few
majority-minority districts, as long as racially polarized voting continues to guarantee
that no one from their community will be elected to Congress or to other
legislatures, advancing a "constitutionally indefensible" position, in the words of
the Washington Legal Foundation? Why does the creation of majority-minority
districts presume "that only a member of a certain race can or will effectually represent
his or her constituents?" Do majority white districts, in which racial bloc
voting by white voters negates any opportunity for black candidates to win elected
office, rest on the same presumption — "that only a member of a certain race
can or will effectively represent his or her constituents?" The vast majority of candidates
for whom black voters cast ballots are white, as are the vast majority of
elected officials who represent black voters. Moreover, there is a long history of
majority black jurisdictions electing white representatives. 30
In the absence of majority black districts, Congress and other legislative bodies
on the state and local level would be virtually all white. If African Americans
feel that there should be some electoral districts in America where they have a
majority because to quote Golda Meir, "as a minority, we have quite a history," is
that, in the Washington Legal Foundation's words, "inimical to democratic values,"
and is it really true that it "undermines the fundamental importance of the
franchise to our society and to our democratic system of government?" Are
"bizarre" looking majority black districts and districts where race was consciously
considered to assure that minorities could elect their representatives of choice
more a threat to democracy than a racially segregated Congress? Is drawing
majority-minority districts to counter white bloc voting really "doing violence to
fundamental constitutional precepts," as the ADL argues? 31 ues to dominate Louisiana politics is not the exception in the South; it is the rule.
Nor is racially polarized voting strictly a Southern phenomenon. Only two of the
forty African American members of the 104th Congress were elected from majority
white districts; in the Twentieth Century only two African Americans have
served in the U.S. Senate. Are African Americans who seek the creation of a few
majority-minority districts, as long as racially polarised voting continues to guarantee
that no one from their community will be elected to Congress or to other
legislatures, advancing a "constitutionally indefensible" position, in the words of
the Washington Legal Foundation? Why does the creation of majority-minority
districts presume "that only a member of a certain race can or will effectually represent
his or her constituents?" Do majority white districts, in which racial bloc
voting by white voters negates any opportunity for black candidates to win elected
office, rest on the same presumption—"that only a member of a certain race
can or will effectively represent his or her constituents?" The vast majority of candidates
for whom black voters cast ballots are white, as are the vast majority of
elected officials who represent black voters. Moreover, there is a long history of
majority black jurisdictions electing white representatives.
The race problem in
American politics is not rooted in the insistence on the part of black voters that
they have electoral districts where they are guaranteed that black candidates will
automatically win; what they seek is districts where they will have an opportunity
to win. The problem is the persistence of racism on the part of white voters that,
left unchecked, continues to marginalize black voters and deny them the opportunity
for full participation in the democratic electoral process.
30
In the absence of majority black districts, Congress and other legislative bodies
on the state and local level would be virtually all white. If African Americans
feel that there should be some electoral districts in America where they have a
majority because to quote Golda Meir, "as a minority, we have quite a history," is
that, in the Washington Legal Foundation's words, "inimical to democratic values,"
and is it really true that it "undermines the fundamental importance of the
franchise to our society and to our democratic system of government?" Are
"bizarre" looking majority black districts and districts where race was consciously
considered to assure that minorities could elect their representatives of choice
more a threat to democracy than a racially segregated Congress? Is drawing
majority-minority districts to counter white bloc voting really "doing violence to
fundamental constitutional precepts," as the ADL argues? 31 The race problem in
American politics is not rooted in the insistence on the part of black voters that
they have electoral districts where they are guaranteed that black candidates will
automatically win; what they seek is districts where they will have an opportunity
to win. The problem is the persistence of racism on the part of white voters that,
left unchecked, continues to marginalize black voters and deny them the opportunity
for full participation in the democratic electoral process.
//
There is a contradiction, even a hypocrisy, concerning the legal, social, and political
discourse about race today. Anyone reading the Supreme Supreme Court's opinion in
Shaw v, Reno, where it in effect accuses the proponents of majority-minority congressional
districts of advocating "political apartheid" and racial balkamzation,
frustrating "the multiracial, and multireligious communities that our