Remedies to Dilution:
Single-Member Districts
and Alternative Approaches

Overview: Assuming that there is a factual basis for filing a suit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, this manual focuses on various remedies that are available to a community. It creates tools for a community to weigh the relative merits and limitations of different remedies under a given set of conditions. An intense local analysis must be performed before a community decides what remedy it seeks to enhance its voting power.

The most popular remedy to minority vote dilution has been the adoption of single-member district plans in which racial or language minority groups gain an opportunity to elect candidates of choice in some districts. Hundreds of minority vote dilution lawsuits in the South have resulted in the conversion of at-large systems to single-member districts. As a direct result, black representation on local governing bodies has increased dramatically in the region.

However, in some jurisdictions black voters are not geographically concentrated enough to enable drawing as many black-majority districts as a black community���s share of the electorate would seem to warrant. (See box below.) Sometimes the black population is too dispersed to draw any black opportunity districts ��� at least ones that are safe from a legal challenge as a ���racial gerrymander��� under the logic of Shaw v. Reno. More broadly, even when black opportunity districts can be drawn, they can leave many black voters and potential candidates outside in districts dominated by white majorities. Choosing which black voters will be empowered to run for office and elect candidates of choice can be difficult.

Since 1987, more than a hundred cities, counties and school districts have settled minority vote dilution lawsuits by enacting ���modified at-large���, or full representation, voting systems. (These systems are also sometimes called ���proportional��� and ���semi-proportional��� systems because like-minded groupings of voters generally elect candidates in proportion to their share of the vote). The three full representation systems currently used for elections in the United States are cumulative voting, limited voting and choice voting. Close to 60 jurisdictions ��� mostly in Texas and Alabama ��� have adopted cumulative voting since 1987. More than twenty jurisdictions have adopted limited voting in North Carolina and Alabama, and it has been used for decades in many localities in Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Choice voting has drawn attention because of its decades of success in providing for the election of racial and ethnic minorities in local elections in Cambridge, Massachusetts and New York City and in elections in the past in such cities as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Kalamazoo and Sacramento.

Reviewing Traditional Systems: Most state and local legislative bodies, such as state legislatures, school boards, county commissions and city councils, traditionally have been elected using one of three models: single-member districts, winner-take-all systems in at-large / multi-seat districts or a mix of at-large and single-member districts.

In winner-take-all at-large systems, voters have the same number of votes as seats, and a slim majority (50%, plus one) of voters has the power to elect all seats. At-large and multi-seat districts have been used to elect many congressional delegations (usually statewide) and state legislatures (not statewide, but in districts with somewhere between two and nine representatives), but multi-seat district systems are now found only in cities, counties and a handful of state legislatures. In these multi-seat districts, candidates sometimes must run for a "numbered post" ��� meaning a particular seat position ��� or against all other candidates simultaneously. The numbered post system is the most difficult for any group in the minority.

Example: In a county with five commission seats, all candidates run countywide, and every voter has a chance to give one vote to up to five candidates. Because of the winner-take-all principle, however, a substantial minority of voters ��� up to 49.9% ��� can be denied a chance to elect even one of the commissioners.

In single-member district systems, a jurisdiction is divided into geographically-defined districts, and each voter can vote only for the representative in the district where that voter lives. Since 1967, single-member districts have been required by statute for congressional elections, and districts are used to elect most state legislators and most city councils in large cities. Since the one-person, one-vote rulings of the 1960's, district lines must be redrawn after the decennial census to make sure that the population of each district in a given jurisdiction is roughly the same.

Example: In a county with five commission seats, each candidate runs for election in his or her district, and the candidate who gets the most votes in that district is elected. Residents in a district can only vote for one of the candidates running in their district and not for candidates running in other districts.

In mixed systems, jurisdictions combine features of both at-large and district elections. In one mixed system, each voter has an opportunity to elect a representative of a local single-member district and other representatives elected at-large. Another type of mixed system combines single-member districts in one area with multi-member districts in another. For example, North Carolina has some state legislators elected in single-member districts in some parts of the state and other state legislators elected in other parts of the state from multi-member districts that elect two or three legislators.

Example: In a five-seat county commission, three commissioners are elected from three single-member districts, and two commissioners are elected at-large by all county voters.

Single-Member Districts as Voting Rights Remedies: Single-member districts are an old idea ��� one going back to the feudal era, in which each local lord would represent his area. They have been used widely throughout the nation going back to the colonial period and were used in much of the South in the late nineteenth century. At-large election systems were introduced widely for local elections during the Progressive era as a substitute for district elections and became common in the South. Although often justified as a means to break up ���political machines,��� one effect was to make it harder for blacks and sometimes poor whites to win elections. The pendulum swung back toward districts in the South in the wake of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 1967, Congress passed a law requiring single-member districts for election of representatives to Congress ��� partly to ensure that southern states would not adopt at-large congressional elections as a reaction to the Voting Rights Act.

One of the chief advantages of single-member districts is that they have been a very effective method of affording black voters an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. In communities where there is already considerable residential segregation, drawing single-member districts can help blacks have representation in government. They also ensure that black neighborhoods are likely to have one representative whom residents can seek to hold accountable. Single-member districts are common throughout the country and are easily understood by voters as a method of earning representation and diversifying state and local government.

But districts can have drawbacks. Those drawn with the primary goal of establishing black electoral opportunities have been under legal and political attack following the Supreme Court���s decision in Shaw v. Reno and subsequent cases. These challenges are particularly problematic in racially polarized communities or states where the black community is dispersed, as non-compact districts are held to strictest scrutiny. (See diagram on following page.) Moreover, single-member districts must be redrawn after every census ��� as took place in 2000 ��� putting representation of racial and ethnic voters in many communities at risk every ten years. Annexations and population shifts during a decade also can threaten strong representation for the black community ��� either by creating a need to redraw districts or by turning black opportunity districts into districts likely to be controlled by white voters. Finally, one-winner districts at times can make it harder for bi-racial or multi-racial electoral coalitions to form, as opposed to multi-seat districts where candidates from different racial groups or communities of interest can run together as a team.

The Census, Community Activism and Full Representation Voting Systems: All legislative districts must be re-examined and typically redrawn after every census to ensure "one person, one vote" ��� that each district has roughly equal numbers of people (as opposed to equal numbers of registered voters or adults). If there have been population changes in a jurisdiction during the course of a decade, it may be possible after the census to create new minority opportunity districts that could not be drawn after the previous census. At the same time, some current minority opportunity districts may be threatened by shifts in population, by partisan calculations (usually Democrats seeking to create more districts with Democratic majorities) or by the Supreme Court's new limitations on using racial factors in redistricting.

Thus the census offers both opportunities and risks. Without active minority community involvement in redistricting issues after the 2000 census, it is possible that minority opportunity single member districts could be seriously weakened in some localities and states. When single-member districts are used, most black representation will be determined by the way districts are drawn rather than subsequent elections. Winnett Hagens of the Atlanta-based Southern Regional Council suggests that 95% of black representation in the entire decade of 2002-2012 will be won or lost in the 2001-2002 redistricting. In other words, for every black candidate who runs a particularly effective campaign and wins a winner-take-all election in a district controlled by white voters, some 20 black candidates will win primarily because of the creation of a black opportunity district or the use of a full representation voting system.

Because of recent legal challenges to single-member district plans, potential gains for black voters may be limited, or even reversed, unless blacks and other people of color mobilize to defend minority opportunity districts or push for full representation election systems. Community leaders and concerned citizens must be aware of the local situation and be prepared to evaluate which election method will be best for each jurisdiction now that data from the 2000 census is available. Given recent legal challenges to drawing minority opportunity districts, it is only sensible for a locality to learn about how a full representation election method might work when exploring single-member district plans.

It is important to learn whether alternative systems are legal in a locality without special action of the legislature or a lawsuit. In some states, localities are given great flexibility to explore different voting methods. In others, the state legislature must approve any change in local election methods, but typically do so if legislators representing that area support the change. Sometimes states are quite rigid in prohibiting anything other than certain winner-take-all systems. In a few states, full representation systems are explicitly provided as options. Reformers should note that in general, state legislators play a central role in redistricting; they are responsible for redistricting plans for their state���s congressional districts, their own state legislative districts and options available to localities.

Of course it is possible to seek to change a local jurisdiction���s election method at any time, but the hectic period of redistricting following the census is a particularly good opportunity to involve the community in a debate about alternatives.

Exploring Alternative Approaches: Local jurisdictions facing Shaw-type legal challenges to black-majority districts or experiencing other conditions that warrant consideration of alternatives to single-member districts should consider full representation election methods such as cumulative voting, limited voting and choice voting. A full representation election method can provide an opportunity for black voters to elect candidates of their choice no matter where they live in a jurisdiction, provided that black voters are a sufficiently large percentage of the electorate to meet the threshold of support required by a particular system to earn seats. Full representation systems are discussed in detail below.

Full Representation Election Systems

Table of Contents