Court settles racial redistricting dispute

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals has finalized a new plan for Boston’s legislative districts, ending a months-long court battle that pitted state leaders against Boston organizations that claimed the district lines drawn after the 2000 Census unfairly diluted minority voting power.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that the new plan is more fair than the original but still gives less voting power to minorities than it should.

Boston activist organizations including Boston VOTE and the Black Political Task Force sued the state House of Representatives for creating more districts in which whites outnumber minorities, even though the census showed that the total minority population exceeds the white population.

The judges decided that Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Finneran (D-Boston) violated the federal Voting Rights Act by creating more white-majority districts and fewer black-majority districts, which discriminates against minorities by weakening their vote.

“In the Boston area, African-Americans vote cohesively, yet the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it, most of the time, to defeat the black-preferred candidate,” the judges wrote in their decision.

The court cited a 1995 at-large city council election in which Frank Jones, a black candidate, won 81 percent of the black vote but only 20 percent of the non-minority vote. With seven candidates vying for four spots, Jones came in fifth and lost.

“Jones … was the most prolific vote-getter in that segment of the community,” the judges wrote, referring to black voters. “We find that this election provides additional evidence of both cohesive African-American voting and majoritorian bloc voting powerful enough to defeat a black-preferred candidate.”

The judges announced their decision at the end of February and told the defendants they had until April to draw more diverse districts that would give more power to minority voters.

The plaintiffs offered their own plan as an alternative to the one struck down by the courts, but the House created its own new version that was accepted by the courts on April 16, even though plaintiffs said the new plan continued to ignore minorities.

Juan Martinez, executive director of MassVOTE, said he feels that there should be a “fairer representation of people of color” in the 11th, 12th and 15th districts, which cover neighborhoods including Mattapan, Roxbury and Dorchester.

Still, Martinez said he was “pleased with the overall process.”

“It was a huge victory for the communities involved,” he said. “The resolution is just the beginning … [there is] more work to be done with redistricting.”

Finneran’s office refused to comment on the outcome of the case.

But City Councilor Chuck Turner (Roxbury, Dorchester) said the House plan was unacceptable.

“I think the plans adopted were not as strong as the one put forward by the plaintiffs,” he said. “I certainly would have hoped to adopt the plaintiff’s plan,” which had “less packing of the districts,” or pushing minorities into a single district, creating more white-majority districts in the process.

Plaintiffs argued that minorities were packed into the 6th Suffolk district, which covers Dorchester and Mattapan, according to the Boston VOTE website. After packing, districts like the 11th Suffolk District became white majority.

The issue of race in redistricting was not a big concern for Rep. Elizabeth Malia (D-Boston), who is white and represents the 11th district, said Angie Jolie, her staff director.

According to Jolie, Malia’s biggest concern is the loss of portions of Roslindale in her district. Many Roslindale residents have disapproved of the changes.

“Change at any time is hard,” she said. “We’ve lost some historical connections” to areas like Roslindale.

While plaintiffs complained of the shifts in the 11th district, Jolie said “[Malia] is happy with the districts she’s been given.”

“[She] works hard to serve all constituents, and she doesn’t see people along all those lines,” she said. “She doesn’t feel like she doesn’t serve those folks well,” referring to minority voters.

Turner said redistricting was a “key issue” in getting blacks to vote, adding that many do not vote out of “cynicism.”

Blacks’ cynicism is “based on our checkered history with this country about being able to expect politicians – particularly white politicians – to deal with people of color fairly,” he said. “I think that cynicism leads to many people opting out and giving up on the system and having a sense that their vote is not going to effect a difference.”

Turner also said money plays a big part in political influence.

“Moneyed interests put up candidates that represent the interests of conservatives,” he said, adding that there is a “manipulation of the electoral process, in both [political] parties.”

But Turner said he is optimistic about the state of minority voting power.

“One of the realities is that communities of color are moving deliberately to [strengthen their] political infrastructure,” he said. “[City Councilor-At-Large Felix] Arroyo came in second because of the strong vote from communities of color to elect a Latino in that position. I think that these next eight years will bring the black, Latino, Asian and Cape Verdean electorate to find ways to work together effectively and put forward candidates that can meet their needs and the needs of white voters.”

Using the courts to force House leaders to redraw congressional boundaries happens all over the country every 10 years, whenever the U.S. Census is conducted and redistricting plans are announced, said Rob Richie, of the Center for Voting and Democracy in Maryland.

“In the ’90s, several states had to redraw entire districts, and that was because of the ruling on the voting rights,” he said, referring to the Voting Rights Act, which was designed to help enforce and uphold federal anti-discrimination laws in elections.

Richie said the 2000 Census prompted litigation from Republicans, who accused legislators of political, not racial, discrimination.

Plaintiffs in a Georgia case claimed their state’s redistricting plans were designed to keep Democrats in power.

Republicans said Democratic leaders pushed many Georgia residents out of inner-city and rural districts and into Republican-leaning suburban districts, spreading the Democratic vote in an attempt to keep Democrats in power, according to a report in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“Republicans sued a year ago, saying the Democrats’ tactic violated the constitutional guarantee of one person, one vote,” according to the article.

Democratic legislators refused to obey a March 1 court order to redraw their maps, so judges began drafting new redistricting plans.

Arroyo said redistricting should be a key issue for minority voters.

“I do believe the people of color in Massachusetts and in the city have to be more careful and continue to watch” Boston’s political practices, especially because unfair redistricting can only be challenged every 10 years, he said.