May 31, 2012 — vol. 47, no 42
Community Voices: Growing diversity demands dramatic redistricting reform
The emerging demography of Boston over the two last decades has virtually transformed the city’s neighborhoods, creating new social and electoral enclaves in communities that were once racially, culturally and economically monolithic.
Increased diversity in the city is critically relevant in the redistricting process now underway within the Boston City Council. Reapportionment outcomes will either negatively or positively impact the political future of historically disenfranchised groups.
The current Boston City Council district design is woefully broken. This is a testament of decades of willful voter suppression, effectively retardingthe civic capabilities of communities already seized by unrelenting poverty, violence and under-performing public schools.
A review of recent redistricting history in Boston is instructive: In 1982 the city of Boston converted to a hybrid city council representation system that allowed for a mix of elected districts and at-large seats. The logic of this momentous change responded to empirically clear evidence that so-called minorities were not adequately represented within the city council body and that the voting strength of these constituencies were severely diluted.
By creating district representation, African American, Latino and Asian voting communities increased their electoral opportunities to vote for those they felt best expressed their political interests. The result has been the election of two black city councilors in the so-called majority-minority districts.
In the 30 years since these changes, the city has continued to transform racially. Yet, redistricting practices have failed to comprehensively capture the substantive shifts in demography.
The result has been uneven political power-sharing between so-called minority communities and intransient white voting blocs. Moreover, the spirit of the 1982 effort ensuring equal inclusion of so-called minorities within elected municipal politics has ostensibly been jettisoned.
Addressing the issue of political fairness and electoral equity within the city council’s district system ought to be prioritized by the city’s redistricting committee and the broader public. In this context, a number of concerns deserve our consideration.
First, it is critical to communities of color that their numerical presence in the city be fully recognized as council districts are redesigned. People of color comprise a clear numerical majority of residents in Boston. Yet the configuration of existing districts do not allow for the fullest expression of their voting capacity. Districts are now designed in such fashions that the electoral influence of so-called minorities are drastically suppressed. Fair consideration of people of color during the redistricting process would remedy this problem. The council is urged to recalibrate district seats against a backdrop of racial and political equality. Avoiding racial gerrymandering is of the utmost importance.
Second, guaranteeing and advancing the voting rights of historically disenfranchised groups — including African Americans, Asians and Latinos — is paramount. We should be ever mindful that these protected class groups are covered by the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
As it is now, only two of the nine city council districts are arranged in ways that allow for the maximum expression of voting rights for people of color. It is demonstrably clear, however, that an additional three districts can be reconstructed in ways that would allow for a total of five “true” districts of color where voter strength is not diluted. A district that would give voters a preference to elect a Latino or Asian to the city council should appeal to us as compelling. This would be fair and legally defensible.
Third, efforts should be directed toward keeping communities of interest intact, especially if they pertain to protecting the voting strength of so-called minorities. Under the current district plan the black neighborhood of Mattapan is cracked or split in two. Because Mattapan is unique and comprised of distinct challenges that intersect with issues related to perennial evidence of racial bias, it is best included in a singular council district. This is also the case with Chinatown. While neighborhood cohesion is important in the redistricting process, the protection of voting rights for so-called minorities trump all.
Allocating political power on the basis of population shifts and racial equity ought to be our commitment during the remainder of the redistricting process in Boston. Focuses on these concerns will respond to the obvious ethnic and racial transformation occurring in Boston.
Kevin C. Peterson is the director of the New Democracy Coalition, which focuses its efforts in the area of civic literacy, civic policy and electoral justice. This opinion editorial is an expanded version of a letter sent to the Boston City Council.
| Jun 5 17:49pm by Kevin C. Peterson [66.228.73.77] | |
Redistricting Comments Reflect Many Flawed Assumptions The comments offered anonymously in the online response to my editorial (Growing diversity demands dramatic redistricting reform, May 31, 2012) deserve a response for a number of important reasons. First, while the writer, in one instance ascribes, to my ideas as "noble and pragmatic" he or she at the same time calls my perspective "off-base and borderline dangerous." All in the first sentence. At the very outset, the writer confusingly contradicts his or her so-called argument, which we soon realized is no more than an aggregated assortment of flawed logic, misdirection and misstatement. In this instance, my accuser seems to say my position around redistricting is good and bad at the same instance and practical and dangerous simultaneously. Clarification from the writer is required here. Second, the writer is dismissive of my call for a united Mattapan into a single district because it happens to cohere with a redistricting plan offered by Boston City Councillor Charles Yancey, author of one of four proposed redistricting maps now before the city council. The disastrous assumption that the writer makes here is that because the idea of uniting Mattapan into a single district is offered by Councillor Yancey then it must be wrong. At best such thinking is unkind because it seems to presume a conspiratorial self-interest on the behalf of Councillor Yancey. It alternatively suggest that Councillor Yancey may not understand redistricting at all. At worst the writer’s conclusions are extraordinarily clumsy: Yancey, a city councilor for almost 30 years, may happen to possess wisdom in this regard. Furthermore, the writer does not seem exert the intellectual energy needed here to explain in any expansive and specific way why uniting Mattapan is the wrong thing to do. Third, the writer implies that the suggestion that Mattapan be included in District 4 means that "district packing" is underway. Here, again, false assumptions cloud the writer’s perspective. I never suggested, for example, that including Mattapan into District 4 would mean that the district would not be reconfigured in other ways that would appropriately "dilute" the district for other positive redistricting effects. The writer makes an unqualified presumption that my argument lacked imagination and fair remedies. But even if the writer was assuming that packing District 4 was my desire, the writer would be incorrect in assuming that "packing" for the purposes of increasing greater representation for so-called minorities is inappropriate. If the writer were fully apprised of ameliorative redistricting practices of the past--locally and nationally--it would become clear that "packing" in order to help historically disenfranchised groups is in order and, more saliently, a desired outcome. Fourth, the writer offers a huge misstatement by suggesting that creating additional so-called “minority-majority" districts is "not feasible" given the current demographics of the city. That statement is woefully wrong. Boston is a so-called majority-minority" city. No question about it. In terms of city redistricting, the current map along, with a number of the proposed maps, reflect voter suppression of black, Latino and Asian voters. Moreover, the current demography of the city can be creatively used to reconstruct districts from the present diversity that will allow a Latino or and Asian election on the district level. To do this would be fair and legal. To be sure, if we fail to produce a city redistricting plan that allows for the full voter expression of Latino or Asian voters, all other alternatives reflect either our intellectual obsolescence or blatant racial bias.
Kevin C. Peterson New Democracy Coalition, Founder |
|
| May 31 0:27am by POPS [205.172.21.53] | |
While his intentions are noble and pragmatic, I believe his thinking here is quite off-base and borderline dangerous. Reuniting Mattapan is of least concern. That's pure Charles Yancey playbook talk. There are technically only 2-3 Mattapan precincts in District 5 (Councillor Consalvo) and the rest in District 4 (Councillor Yancey). When speaking in redistricting terms, District 5 is a prime opportunity district when the current incumbent moves on and furthermore, District 4 is heavily "packed" and actually should be diluted more to strengthen the surrounding districts for underrepresented communities of interest. Lastly, the notion of 5 districts that consist of a majority of people of color is well-intentioned, but not feasible given the demographics of Boston's neighborhoods and the constraints of the redistricting process in terms of population variance, contiguity, voting age population limitations. |
|
