THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, June 23, 1996 TAG: 9606210036
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: MARGARET EDDS
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: 78 lines
When Bill Clinton promised in the 1992 presidential race to appoint a Cabinet and staff that ``looks like America,'' the thought resonated.
Nothing against beleaguered white males, god bless them. But from state legislatures to school boards to newspaper columns, it's good that not all the faces look the same. Diversity is what we've come to expect.
It's more lively. More interesting. More authentic. This is not to say that someone who doesn't look like you can't express your views. Many times they might, better than your twin. But there's a subtle message about empathy and access and comfortability in knowing that your gender or race or hometown or profession is represented.
It connotes ownership. It says that you, too, can lay claim to the rock.
That's partly why the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down majority-minority congressional districts in North Carolina and Texas has sent shudders through the civil-rights community. Almost everyone agrees that when the dust settles, there will be fewer African-American and Hispanic members of Congress.
It's only a matter of time until the principles filter down to state legislatures and city councils as well.
Coming in tandem with the rash of black church burnings across the South, the court decision is a staggering one-two punch to many who lived through segregation.
``It's a turning back of the clock . . . as momentous as Plessy vs. Ferguson,'' says no less an expert on racial voting patterns than former Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder. The nation's only elected black governor, Wilder is referring to the 1896 decision that validated separate public facilities for blacks and whites.
In the aftermath of the latest court action, Wilder is being cited nationally as an example of how white voters will support qualified black candidates.
Wilder's response is tart. ``They have no idea how difficult that is,'' he said. ``Sure I'm happy and proud to have been elected, but I can tell you from experience that it's an awesome price.''
History may be on Wilder's side, but there are less-bleak ways to regard the Supreme Court decision. One is that people conditioned by history to resourcefulness will find it in this situation as well. Among the excuses for hope:
Supreme Court rulings on voting rights are seldom the last word. The history of court and legislative actions over the past quarter-century has been a jerky tango, first forward, then back, back again, then forward.
The makeup of the court may change, altering the 5-4 majority in this decision. Chief Justice William Rehnquist is rumored to be near retirement. Democrat Bill Clinton would certainly appoint a replacement attuned to minority rights.
Republican Bob Dole might also name a centrist. Republicans, who have gained politically through the concentration of minority voters, have been allies in the push for majority-minority districts.
New tactics may arise. Political opposites such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Lani Guinier both have suggested adaptations in voting structures that might produce a more proportional outcome.
Some adjustment in district lines might not hurt. Statistics compiled by David Epstein, a Harvard University professor, conclude that minorities have the greatest sway on policy when they have moderate impact across many districts.
``They have fewer representatives but greater representation,'' says Epstein. He argues that the optimum districts have a black voting-age population of 45 percent to 47 percent. Many of the current lot approach 65 percent.
The court's decision did not close the door to concentrations of minority voters, if factors other than race are considered in drawing district lines.
And finally, for all that remains wrong with race relations in America, 1996 is not 1966. The bipartisan, biracial outrage over church burnings is an indication. We may not know how to get there, and prejudices - both latent and blatant - may get in the way.
But I'd be willing to bet most people want city councils and state legislatures and a Congress that look like America. We can only hope there's enough will to create a way. MEMO: Ms. Edds is an editorial writer for The Virginian-Pilot. by CNB