Race and Partisanship: Congressional Redistricting In the South After the 2000 Census

Authors

  • Donald W. Beachler

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2004.25.0.137-155

Abstract

Much of the literature on the effort to increase minority representation in Congress has focused on the extent to which creating majority-minority districts decreased the prospects for the election of Democrats. Little attention is paid to the partisanship of those drawing the district lines. An examination of redistricting in the South after the 2000 census indicates that Republican controlled state legislatures will distribute minority voters in a dramatically different fashion than will Democrat majority legislatures. When Democrats draw district lines, it is possible to draw district lines that benefit minority candidates and enhance overall Democratic electoral prospects.

References

Barone, Michael, and Richard Cohen. 2003. The Almanac of American Politics, 2004. Washington, DC: The National Journal.

Barone, Michael, and Richard Cohen. 2001. The Almanac of American Politics, 2002. Washington, DC: The National Journal.

Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa. 1999. The Almanac of American Politics, 2000. Washington, DC: The National Journal.

Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa. 1995. The Almanac of American Politics, 1996. Washington, DC: The National Journal.

Beachler, Donald W. 1998. Racial and Partisan Gerrymandering: Three States in the 1990s. The American Review of Politics 19:1-16.

Beachler, Donald W. 1995. Racial Gerrymandering and Republican Gains in Southern House Elections. Journal of Political Science 23:65-86.

Bousquet, Steve. 2002. Tailored Congressional Districts Approved. St. Petersburg Times. March 23, 1A.

Bullock, Charles S. III, and Richard E. Dunn. 1999. The Demise of Racial Redistricting and the Future of Black Representation. Emory Law Journal 48:1209-1252.

Cameron, Charles, David Epstein, and Sharon OíHalloryn. 1996. Did Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Representation in Congress? American Political Science Review 90:794-812. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2945843

Cohen, Adam. 2002. Why Republicans are Shamelessly in Love with the Voting Rights Act. The New York Times March 24, Section 4, 14.

Eversley, Melanie. 2002. Redistricting Map for Georgia goes to Court in D.C. Atlanta Journal Constitution February 4, C1.

Finn, Michael. 2001. Remap Discussions Focus on Black Voters. Chattanooga Times September 8.

Gilmer, Bryan. 2002. Youngís District May See Change. St. Petersburg Times February 16, 1A.

Grofman, Bernard, Lisa Handley, and David Lublin. 2001. What Minority Populations are Sufficient to Afford Minorities a Realistic Chance to Elect Candidates of Choice? Drawing Effective Minority Districts: A Conceptual Framework and Some Empirical Evidence. North Carolina Law Review 79 (June): 1383-1430.

Hill, Kevin. 1995. Does the Creation of Black Majority Districts Aid Republicans? Journal of Politics 57:384-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960312

Humphrey, Tom, and Richard Powelson. 2002. The Democratic Designed State Redistricting Plan on Hold. Knoxville News Sentinel January 7, A1.

Jacobson, Gary. 2003. Terror, Terrain, and Turnout: Explaining the 2002 Midterm Elections. Political Science Quarterly 118(1):1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2003.tb00384.x

Lublin, David. 1997. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Overby, L. Marvin, and Robert D. Brown. 2002. Race, Redistricting and Re-election: The Fate of White Incumbent Democrats in the 1994 Congressional Elections. American Review of Politics 23: 337-354.

Overby, L. Marvin, and Kenneth Cosgrove. 1996. Unintended Consequences: Racial Redistricting and the Representation of Minority Interests. Journal of Politics 58:540-555. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960239

Pendered, David, and Rhonda Cook. 2001. Creative Legislators Draw New Congressional Map. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution September 29, 1A.

Pildes, Richard. 2002. Is Voting Rights Law at Odds with Itself? North Carolina Law Review 80:1517-1573.

Solochek, Jeffrey S. 2002. How Brown-Waite Ousted Thurman. St. Petersburg Times November 7, 1.

Stallsmith, Pamela. 2003. Judge: Black Vote Undiluted in 4th; Group's Challenge to Plan Dismissed. Richmond Times Dispatch August 9.

Swain, Carol M. 1995. Black Faces, Black Interests; The Representation of African Americans in Congress. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

White, David. 2002. New District Lines Map Help Demos. Birmingham News. January 23.

White, David. 2001. Redistricting Keeps House Deadlocked. Birmingham News September 12.

Whitley, Tyler. 2003. Redistricting Ruling Cheers Group, Lawyers Want 4th District Changed. Richmond Times Dispatch June 28, B-4.

Whitley, Tyler. 2002. Panel Refiles Redistricting Challenge. Richmond Times DispatchApril 4, B-2.

Whittington, Lauren W. 2002. Democrats Seek Answers after Disaster in Georgia. Roll Call. November 7.

Downloads

Published

2004-07-01

Issue

Vol. 25: Summer 2004

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.