Redistricting in Texas Disadvantages Minorities
Published January 23rd 2004 in Howard University Hilltop

Our View: The Supreme Court should have blocked the Texas GOP redistricting plan.

Democrats suffered a crippling defeat last Friday when the Supreme Court refused to block a hard-fought Republican redistricting plan in Texas in the case of Jackson v. Perry. The new map could cost Democrats as many as six seats in an already Republican-controlled Congress.
The redistricting will inevitably weaken minority voting strength. Politically speaking, the lines have been drawn in just the right places to give Republicans the confidence to expect a seizure of 22 of Texas's 32 seats in Congress. The districts were drawn and approved by the Texas Legislature, which is also controlled by Republicans.

This new plan will have a likely troublesome effect on the upcoming Presidential election for Democrats.

The Supreme Court's decision is evidence of the negative affect a predominately conservative Court will have on minority populations. The Court conveniently declined to rule on the 'wisdom" of Texas's new redistricting plan.

We believe the Court has failed minorities by refusing to block this plan.

This type of redistricting is known in black politics as "gerrymandering" and it is nothing new. This practice has been going on since blacks first received the right to vote as a means of suppressing African-American voting power. The plan is to separate districts by race, class, and any other social group that can be sectioned off to best fit a specific political goal. Who do you think gets blocked out?

We as African-American voters need to make this an issue so that it is not continuously accepted as okay. This is an important issue that we should lobby and write to our Congress members about. The practice of redrawing district lines could becomes even more widespread, even outside of the state of Texas.

If we don't fight for our voting rights, no one will.
IRV Soars in Twin Cities, FairVote Corrects the Pundits on Meaning of Election Night '09
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers.  Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections;  the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.

And as pundits try to make hay out of the national implications of Tuesday’s gubernatorial elections, Rob Richie in the Huffington Post concludes that the gubernatorial elections have little bearing on federal elections.

Links