When people talk about racial justice, they are more apt to have in mind police brutality than democratic reform—especially in the last few weeks. But doesn't the way in which our democracy is organized discriminate against people of color? Even if it's not, strictly speaking, the intent: the intent, for example, might be to screw over Democrats, which, considering who votes for whom, has the effect of screwing over African Americans.
Gerrymandering is one prominent aspect of the problem. African Americans are about 27% of the population in Alabama, enough to give them a pretty loud voice in how things go. In theory. In practice, not so much. For example, the state has seven congressional districts. One of them, the seventh, is 64% African-American. Is the explanation for this that black Alabamians are clustered together in one part of the state? The above is a map of the district. Rural west-central Alabama is heavily African-American and, in land mass, that's the heart of the district. But suppose that a computer were programmed to generate a million different ways in which the state might be divided into seven more or less geometrically regular districts of equal population. In how many of them would the so-called rural black belt be in the same district as much of metropolitan Montgomery (heavily African-American), much of metropolitan Birmingham (heavily African American), and the town of Tuscaloosa (not a ton of African Americans but, for Alabama, a lot of white Democrats, on account of the presence of the University of Alabama)? I think the answer is: none. The evidence would be that the irregularly shaped fringes of the map are precisely the parts needed to squeeze the cities into what is otherwise a rural district.
People complain about "political polarization." Well, gerrymandering is a big part of that problem, too. If African Americans were a quarter to a third of the population in most of the districts, they'd have a moderating effect on the state's congressional delegation. The real right-wing nut-jobs would have a harder time getting elected, even in districts that would be strongly Republican. If you doubt this, consider that in the last US Senate election in the state, Judge Roy Moore, a wingnut with a fondness for very young girls, carried six of the seven congressional districts. Moore lost to Democrat Doug Jones by 1.5% of the statewide vote only because he got crushed, 78% to 21%, in the seventh congressional district. This gives you an idea of who can be elected in six of the seven districts.
The nonpartisan Cook Political Report assigns a PVI (partisan voter index) to every congressional district in the country. In Alabama, the seventh is Democrat +20. The other six range from Republican +15 to Republican +30. You draw district boundaries like this, then complain about "political polarization"? And deliver lectures on the decline of civility, an excess of "partisan rancor" and, gasp, cynicism? C'mon man!
I suppose you could say that African Americans in Alabama have a voice, even if it's diminished. That grants them a place in the hierarchy somewhat above residents of the District of Columbia. The population of the District is greater than that of Wyoming, which has a representative in the House and, like California, two seats in the Senate. Residents of the District, 47% of whom are African Americans, have no representation in the Congress. According to sloganeering patriots of yesteryear, they should therefore be exempt from federal taxation, but of course they aren't. The other day, Tom Cotton, Republican from Arkansas, gave a speech on the Senate floor opposing statehood for the District. His argument had to do with his disapproval of D.C.'s mayor. Also, he said that Wyoming, compared to the District, is "well-rounded."
I have a feeling that if the people of the District looked like the people of North Dakota (and voted like them), Cotton would want two new states, maybe "East D.C." and "West D.C." Four new senators! Democracy!
Comments