Actually, the Illinois Senatorial election of 2004 was historic. It was the first Senatorial election since Reconstruction where both major party candidates were black. It also proved that not all right-wing wingnuts are Caucasian.

I’ll bite…. how did that race prove that not all right-wing wingnuts were Caucasian?

I’ll admit that living in Dupage county, I do know right-wing non-Caucasians, but how did that election prove it? Keyes wasn’t nominated by blacks!

[Fixed! --Amp]

Rachel S. Writes:
March 1st, 2007 at 6:02 pm
…we all know that this would have never been done if whites were willing to elect blacks, and blacks hadn’t been disenfranchised in the first place.

I absolutely agree.

I am not trying to attack minority districts. I am merely pointing out that judges, congress, district apportioners, voters in the affected districts, people who run for office in the affected districts, and news folks who report on elections in the affected districts… Well, all those people are “buying in” to the concept that race is a huge determinant in BOTH voting AND representation. There’s no equivalently publicized phenomenon for the other “color neutral” side. And, as you note, the reality DOES seem to be taht people will vote based at least partly on race.

So when i see the report you cited, it doesn’t seem odd at all. It seems sad, but based on the assumptions which are (to date) proven to be fairly true, it doesn’t seem unreasonable.

For sailorman and RonF, I understand of creating majority black voting districts, but we all know that this would have never been done if whites were willing to elect blacks, and blacks hadn’t been disenfranchised in the first place.

Certainly there once was a time when that was true, but that time is well past. It’s interesting that all 3 black Senators that have been elected since reconstruction were elected out of states that were anywhere from 67% black white to 90%+. I’ve been trying to find a listing of the racial balances of all the individual states in one table, but no go.

Actually, the Illinois Senatorial election of 2004 was historic. It was the first Senatorial election since Reconstruction where both major party candidates were black. It also proved that not all right-wing wingnuts are Caucasian.

It’s worth questioning just how important the objective is of achieving a racial balance in our legislative bodies through gerrymandering is compared to other objectives. Illinois’ 4th congressional district is an extreme example. I have no particular problem with creating reasonably contiguous districts that also have majority-minority populations. The problem is defining “reasonably contiguous”. That sure as hell isn’t it. How much compromise of republican (note the small “r”) principles does racial balance justify?

It’s one thing when minorities are actually disenfranchised. But these days, that doesn’t apply. What we have now is the inevitable effect of being a minority; there are going to be areas with significant numbers of minorities that are scattered to the point where there is no reasonable way to divide up the area in such a fashion as to create minority-majority districts. It becomes a math topology problem with no solution. The presumption is that if minorities are not present as members in a legislative body, then the minority population is not itself represented; I take that as false. They are represented by the people they helped elect. Even if that person is not the same race as they are, that legislator still represents them, and they have the rights of free speech and the ballot (and campaign contributions) to try to influence that legislator’s vote.

I’ll have to pass on the question about the House districts; I just don’t know.

For sailorman and RonF, I understand of creating majority black voting districts, but we all know that this would have never been done if whites were willing to elect blacks, and blacks hadn’t been disenfranchised in the first place.

I don’t know of any House District that is majority white and is held by a black Congressperson? Can you? There was JC Watts a few years ago, and obviously Barack Obama is representing a predominantly white state, but as a Senator. I think that is the missing angle to this story.

The general consensus was that there were a lot of people who voted for her mainly because she was a woman; the “liberals” because they thought that it was “a woman’s turn” or that “it will give a big boost to women”, and the “conservatives” because “this will give the final push towards a schism”. The idea that white/black/males/females should owe their loyalty to and vote for a candidate because they match those characteristics seems a real bad idea to me, and it seems that this is reflecting that. Good.

There is a question that this raises - is Barak Obama “black”? Is he perceived that way? Why should or should not he market himself that way. Consider that another very famous person who unquestionably looks black takes pains to describe himself as “multiracial” instead; Tiger Woods. While Tiger isn’t running for office, his image has quite a bit to do with his public stature and income (he makes more money in endorsements than in golf winnings). Why would, or would not, Barak Obama bill himself as “multiracial” as well?

If you would like to see a particularly egregious example of the latter, go to here and click on the “preview” for Illinois District 4. A true gerrymander. The map makers wanted to make a “Hispanic” district.

Rachel S. | February 28th, 2007

April sent me a link to this CNN article titled “Is black America Ready to Embrace Obama?” I just wanted to point out the absurdity of the “story highlights” listed at the top of the page. There seems to be an assumption that black people should like Obama and vote for him because he’s black–as if his other policies don’t matter at all.

…I wish the mainstream media could just accept the fact black voters don’t automatically vote for Black candidates. Perhaps black voters care more about policies than they do about a candidate’s racial identity. Now isn’t that a novel idea, voting on policy.

I’m not really sure it’s entirely the media’s fault.

Remember things like, oh.. minority redistricting? racial apportionment? Methods designed to ensure that minorities were represented by minorities? Those are still hot button issues which get a lot of backing from courts and other groups.**

Unsurprisingly, minorities in general have been supportive of such methods. Problem is, they also support a claim that there’s a “black way” to vote: after all, if a black and white candidate would both vote identically well, and both be equally capable of representing blacks and whites, there’d be no need to consider race in the equation at all.

So when a big driving force in election law and election districting is race, it’s pretty unsurprising that a lot of folks will conclude “race matters.” I know you like to attack the equality view, but one of the benefits of it is that this sort of logical conclusion doesn’t happen.

Not incidentally, I suspect that this affects whites and blacks who are otherwise undecided as well: if someone focuses on racial differences and claims I can’t represent them because I’m white, I’m skeptical of their ability to represent me if they’re not. That skepticism doesn’t develop because they’re nonwhite; if they were neutral on race then their race doesn’t matter. It develops because they think race does matter.

So in my view, it’s not only a racial problem. It’s a public consistency problem.

**A lot of the minority redistricting cases I have read were, in essence, designed to “fix” districts that were covertly drawn to disenfranchise minorities. A few highly publicized ones were not. In either case, I’m not trying to get into the issue of whether/when such action is justified. Rather, I’m talking about the media’s response to PUBLIC action. My point is that the media reacts more to overt action than covert action, which leads to a public consistency issue.

This reminds me of the silly expectation that feminists will automatically be voting for Hilary.