Race and Redistricting

It seems difficult to believe but two years have already passed since the 2010 census, but it has indeed long since passed. As always the census provides a wealth of data that social and demographic scientists can spend an indefinite number of hours slaving away in deciphering. While not everyone may find this interesting or relevant to their lives, one consequence of the census with far-reaching outcomes is the redistricting process. After every census the Congressional districts for the House of Representatives are reshaped in accordance with each States’ population. As the populations of each state rise and fall, so too does the number of representatives for that state. Therefore to accommodate this change the congressional districts must be redrawn, a process which oftentimes is used by political parties to further solidify their chances at maintaining dominance. This political issue can also become tied in with race, especially considering that ethnic minorities tend to favor one party over another, in particular the Democratic Party.

Currently that process of congressional redistricting is going on and one state in which race and ethnicity is a key component is Texas, the state that outgrew other states and gained four additional congressional seats alongside the thirty-four it already had. Most of that growth, about eighty-nine percent of it, came from as a result of minority populations, specifically Latinos. Therefore, minority interest groups made the case that the redistricting should reflect that growth, which shows African Americans and Latinos out growing Whites at a higher rate. However, the state map revealed by the state judges in San Antonio showed that of these four new districts two had a white majority and the other two had a Latino majority.

This has led to the start of legal battles over these maps, both between Republicans and Democrats as well as various ethnic minority groups. One group who has felt the hardest hit are African Americans who gained no viable district in which they were the majority, despite Latinos getting two and Whites also getting two. This has even led to a schism between ethnic minority interest groups, such as the League of Latin American Citizens, who approved of the map, and the Texas NAACP, who feel that this map would severely dampen the political autonomy of African American and deny them a majority district in which they could consistently elect a representative with their best interests.

Of course this situation asks a lot of questions concerning race. How does the race of a candidate or a representative effect how they act in favor of their constituency, especially if it’s an ethnic minority? Can a White or Latino congressperson adequately represent African Americans? Is there an inherently conscious racial component to congressional redistricting or is it merely an unintended consequence? This situation demonstrates how race is perceived in politics to many minority groups, that a member of their ‘group’ is the best to have them represented in the political sphere. This also shows how a seemingly political issue has social consequences, whether intended or not. Finally, the schism between Latino and African American interest groups is a political example of Edna Bonacich’s split labor market theory, in which a dominant group pits the subordinate groups into competition with one another. This prevents the subordinate groups from challenging the dominate group. In the case of Texas’ redistricting this could have an enormous impact on both state and national politics.

You can find the New York Times article concerning this here.