By The Editors

The rapid approach of the 2010 redistricting cycle has underscored the potential conflict between so-called Independent Redistricting Commissions (IRCs) and protecting minority voting rights.

In most states, redistricting is carried out by members of the legislature. But now that the redistricting cycle will soon begin, voters and elected officials in a number of states are considering a range of proposals to change the redistricting process. One such proposal is to create IRCs, committees of appointed officials who assume responsibility for redistricting within a state.

The opportunity for minority communities to elect candidates of their choice can be, and often is, dramatically affected by the drawing of district lines. While redistricting proposals calling for the creation of IRCs may be meant to cure the perceived partisan or incumbency problems with the existing composition of redistricting bodies – by replacing elected officials with appointed ones – they may merely shift the focus from districts designed to aid the election of a particular party or candidate to districts that do not favor a particular party or candidate.

If an IRC proposal does not adequately safeguard minority voting rights, then redistricting criteria can harm minority voters. In fact, some IRC proposals have included stringent criteria that frustrate the application of Voting Rights Act principles.

Impact on Voting Rights

On June 3, the NAACP Legal Defense And Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), released a report, Independent Redistricting Commissions: Reforming Redistricting Without Reversing Progress Toward Racial Equality (PDF), to provide an overview of IRCs and examine their potential impact on minority voting rights. The report also urges voters to be vigilant in monitoring any late efforts to change the rules that govern the way redistricting lines are drawn. America has an unfortunate history of persistent and adaptive discrimination in the electoral process, including redistricting reform efforts that have suppressed minority voting rights, ultimately leading to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA).

This requires a careful examination of all redistricting reform proposals. LDF’s long experience in enforcing the VRA indicates that creating a commission free of dominant political influence should not be the only concern when considering proposals for redistricting reform. IRCs should adhere to and be guided by principles consistent with the VRA.

“Independent redistricting commissions strip responsibility away from elected officials and transfer that responsibility to individuals who are not accountable to the electorate, and who may have little to no experience with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act,” explained John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel.

“We must therefore ensure,” he continued, “that redistricting is guided by principles consistent with the Voting Rights Act. By themselves, independent redistricting commissions do not ensure that the process will be fair, or that a final redistricting plan will protect minority voting rights.”

Proponents of IRCs argue that transferring responsibility for redistricting from elected officials to appointed commission members will ensure that political motivations and self-interest do not influence the redistricting process. As a result, the proponents assert, IRCs will help eliminate political and partisan objectives as a dominant factor in deterring district lines.

Ensuring Better Compliance

LDF proposes the following principles to better ensure compliance with the mandates of the VRA and to direct the creation of, and work carried out by, Independent Redistricting Commissions:

• Principle 1: Include language that protects minority voting rights principles in redistricting criteria;
• Principle 2: Reject redistricting criteria that will hinder the protection of minority voting rights principles;
• Principle 3: Require the creation of districts where minorities can combine with other groups to have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice when feasible;
• Principle 4: Establish a process structured to yield a diverse commission;
• Principle 5: Include minority perspectives at the planning stage; and
• Principle 6: Eliminate fairness barriers that dilute minority voting strength.

Adhering to these guiding principles will help safeguard against racial discrimination in the creation of IRCs and provide minority groups the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Ultimately, these guiding principles will be instrumental in fully realizing the letter and spirit of the Voting Rights Act.

The Redistricting Process, Minority Voting Rights and the Voting Rights Act

Each decade, some redistricting plans “dilute” or weaken the ability of minority racial groups to elect candidates of their choice. Redistricting techniques historically employed to dilute minority voting rights include:

• “Cracking” -fragmenting concentrations of minority population and dispersing them among other districts to prevent minority opportunities to elect candidates of their choice.
• “Stacking” -combining concentrations of minority population with greater concentrations of white population to prevent minority opportunities to elect candidates of their choice.
• “Packing” -over-concentrating minorities in as few districts as possible to minimize the number of districts in which minorities constitute a numerical majority (referred to as “majority-minority districts”).

These techniques result in the dilution of minority voting strength, since minorities are not able to elect as many candidates to office as they could if the districts were drawn in a fair way.

The Voting Rights Act has two important provisions which prohibit weakening voting strength: Section 2 and Section 5.

• Section 2 prohibits practices that intend to or result in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race, color, or status as a language minority. A violation of Section 2 is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that voting practices are not equally open to participation by minorities. Hence, voting practices that limit the chance of minority voters to elect the candidates of their choice violates Section 2.
• Section 5 requires all or part of 16 “covered jurisdictions” with a history of discrimination in voting practices to submit changes to voting laws, rules, or procedures to the federal government for “pre-clearance,” a review process designed to make sure that proposed voting changes in these jurisdictions are not racially discriminatory. Voting practices that violate Section 5 are prevented from being enforced in the covered jurisdictions.

Unfortunately, IRCs do not guarantee a process or final redistricting plan that will protect minority voting rights. Indeed, during the 2000 redistricting cycle, the redistricting plan adopted by an IRC in Arizona resulted in an objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Read Independent Redistricting Commissions: Reforming Redistricting Without Reversing Progress Toward Racial Equality (PDF) To learn what LDF proposes to assist IRCs in carrying out their redistricting responsibility in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.