THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, February 12, 1997 TAG: 9702120009
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A18 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 71 lines
In North Carolina, Georgia, Texas - and now Virginia - federal jurists have spoken clearly. It is unconstitutional to draw congressional districts that are mostly about race.
Last week's evaluation of Virginia's majority-minority 3rd District by a three-judge federal panel upheld that principle. Unequivocally. ``The evidence, in our view, is overwhelming that the creation of a safe black district predominated in the drawing of the boundaries of the Third Congressional District,'' wrote senior U.S. District Judge Robert R. Merhige Jr.
And that, he said, is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
That a jurist so historically sympathetic to minority rights as Merhige penned the unanimous opinion should give pause to any person or group pushing for an appeal. Reading the opinion should erase any doubt whatsoever.
No matter how inclined one may be toward the cause of minority advancement, to appeal the ruling would be a waste of the attorney general's energy and of taxpayer money.
The legislature apparently agrees and is expected to get on with the business of redrawing district lines. It should remain mindful of the fact that the Supreme Court has not banned race as ``a'' consideration in redistricting, only as ``the'' consideration.
For those who question the grounds for the court's ruling, here is a brief laundry list of the evidence which Merhige found compelling. Reading it, one should remember that this is the same judge who a generation ago reshaped Richmond with a series of historic rulings involving race. His most controversial decision, later overturned, ordered school busing across city-county boundaries.
In reviewing the 3rd District, created by the 1991 General Assembly, Merhige and his colleagues found that:
General Assembly panels overseeing redistricting were told in writing not to reduce minority representation below an agreed-to 64 percent.
Then-Attorney General Mary Sue Terry told the Justice Department, again in writing, that the legislature's goal was to ``establish a majority black district.''
The ``bizarre and tortured'' shape of the district, stretching from Norfolk to the Rappahannock River, can only be explained by race. Despite court dictums opposed to the practice of splitting jurisdictions, 11 localities were divided between two congressional districts in order to create the 200-mile long territory.
Traditional redistricting concerns such as compactness and commonality of interest were, except for race, clearly ignored.
``In other words,'' Merhige wrote, quoting from an earlier Supreme Court ruling ``race was the criterion that, in the State's view, could not be compromised.''
A fair enough summary of why the present 3rd District is unacceptable, but the ruling against it should not be regarded as evidence that a race-neutral society has been achieved. There is a reason that 3rd District Rep. Bobby Scott is Virginia's first black congressman since Reconstruction, and it is this: Virginia's electorate, with a few notable exceptions, has not been colorblind.
The legislature should go back to the drawing board, creating one or - if possible - two districts in which there is a substantial enough minority population to influence the outcome of an election.
Lawmakers cannot subjugate every other concern to race. But the Supreme Court has ruled that ``narrowly tailored'' redistricting to meet ``a compelling state interest'' - including fair racial representation - is acceptable.
The Assembly should seek ways to create such districts.
KEYWORDS: REDISTRICTING GENERAL ASSEMBLY
CONGRESSIONAL VOTING DISTRICTS