Since the creation of minority-dominated congressional districts eight years ago, the Supreme Court has condemned the move as akin to "political apartheid," while many African-American leaders argue that such districts are required for authentic representation. In the most comprehensive treatment of the subject to date, David Canon shows that the unintended consequences of black majority districts actually contradict the common wisdom that whites will not be adequately represented in these areas. Not only do black candidates need white votes to win, but this crucial "swing" vote often decides the race. And, once elected, even the black members who appeal primarily to black voters usually do a better job than white members of walking the racial tightrope, balancing the needs of their diverse constituents. Ultimately, Canon contends, minority districting is good for the country as a whole. These districts not only give African Americans a greater voice in the political process, they promote a politics of commonality—a biracial politics—rather than a politics of difference.

The National Political Science Review is the official publication of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists. This series, now entering its sixth volume, includes significant scholarly research reflecting the diverse interests of scholars from various backgrounds who use different models, approaches, and methodologies. The central focus is on politics and policies that advantage or disadvantage groups because of race, ethnicity, gender, and other major variables.Race and Representation is anchored by a symposium that focuses on efforts to enhance representation of African Americans in legislative bodies under the authority of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, and on recent court challenges to the constitutionality of redistricting plans drawn under that act. The chapters constitute an extension of an ongoing and protracted, highly charged, public debate. In her introduction, Georgia A. Persons discusses how recent Supreme Court rulings, such as in Shaw v. Reno, Miller v. Johnson, and Bush v. Vera, have significantly redefined the meaning and permissible parameters of the Voting Rights Act. She affirms that they have also strongly posited, albeit somewhat indirectly, a legal meaning of representation that is at variance with the more broadly philosophical meaning of representation grounded in the ideal of enhancing equality among different groups in a society.The articles in Race and Representation are refreshingly informative. They include case studies written by political scientists who became involved directly with events surrounding the theme of this volume. A new section, 'Reflections,' is introduced; it will be reserved for commentary and analysis of an issue that captures the political spirit of the times. In the inaugural contribution, J. Owens Smith reflects on the assault on liberal philosophy as a foundation for civil rights claims and offers an alternative philosophical prism for viewing and justifying such claims. This volume is essen

The symbolic importance of Barack Obama's election is without question. But beyond symbolism, does the election of African-American politicians matter? Grose argues that it does and presents a unified theory of representation. Electing African-American legislators yields more federal dollars and congressional attention directed toward African-American voters. However, race and affirmative action gerrymandering have no impact on public policy passed in Congress. Grose is the first to examine a natural experiment and exceptional moment in history in which black legislators – especially in the U.S. South – represented districts with a majority of white constituents. This is the first systematic examination of the effect of a legislator's race above and beyond the effect of constituency racial characteristics. Grose offers policy prescriptions, including the suggestion that voting rights advocates, the courts, and redistricters draw 'black decisive districts', electorally competitive districts that are likely to elect African Americans.

In The Paradox of Representation David Lublin offers an unprecedented analysis of a vast range of rigorous, empirical evidence that exposes the central paradox of racial representation: Racial redistricting remains vital to the election of African Americans and Latinos but makes Congress less likely to adopt policies favored by blacks. Lublin's evidence, together with policy recommendations for improving minority representation, will make observers of the political scene reconsider the avenues to fair representation. Using data on all representatives elected to Congress between 1972 and 1994, Lublin examines the link between the racial composition of a congressional district and its representative's race as well as ideology. The author confirms the view that specially drawn districts must exist to ensure the election of African Americans and Latinos. He also shows, however, that a relatively small number of minorities in a district can lead to the election of a representative attentive to their interests. When African Americans and Latinos make up 40 percent of a district, according to Lublin's findings, they have a strong liberalizing influence on representatives of both parties; when they make up 55 percent, the district is almost certain to elect a minority representative. Lublin notes that particularly in the South, the practice of concentrating minority populations into a small number of districts decreases the liberal influence in the remaining areas. Thus, a handful of minority representatives, almost invariably Democrats, win elections, but so do a greater number of conservative Republicans. The author proposes that establishing a balance between majority-minority districts and districts where the minority population would be slightly more dispersed, making up 40 percent of a total district, would allow more African Americans to exercise more influence over their representatives.

During the early 1990s the Department of Justice used its Voting Rights Act power to object to racially unfair redistricting laws to force states to maximize minority congressional districts. The results were dramatic: Congressional Black Caucus membership swelled from 25 to 38 and nine new Hispanic congresspersons were sworn in. Only three years later, the maximization strategy lay in ruins. The courts forced many of the new minority districts to be redrawn and the judiciary reserved especially harsh criticism for the Department. Cunningham examines and analyzes how the Department came to adopt the maximization strategy. He explores the bureaucratic culture of the Division's Voting Section, its history, and the interaction of its progressive career staff with more conservative political appointees. The Division works amidst a vibrant interest group environment, with civil rights advocates, the state, and political parties eager for influence. Cunningham shows how that influence contest was won by the civil rights groups, how their preferred interpretations of fair redistricting and discriminatory purpose were adopted by the Division, and how their chosen districting models were forced upon states by the Division. He examines the effect the Department has had on federalism, representation, and its own impaired credibility with the judiciary. Finally, he suggests how the Division might resurrect its damaged reputation for balanced enforcement. An important study for scholars, students, and public policy makers involved with civil rights, public administration, and public law.

Pundits have observed that if so many incumbents are returned to Congress to each election by such wide margins, perhaps we should look for ways to increase competitiveness – a centerpiece to the American way of life – through redistricting. Do competitive elections increase voter satisfaction? How does voting for a losing candidate affect voters’ attitudes toward government? The not-so-surprising conclusion is that losing voters are less satisfied with Congress and their Representative, but the implications for the way in which we draw congressional and state legislative districts are less straightforward. Redistricting and Representation argues that competition in general elections is not the sine qua non of healthy democracy, and that it in fact contributes to the low levels of approval of Congress and its members. Brunell makes the case for a radical departure from traditional approaches to redistricting – arguing that we need to "pack" districts with as many like-minded partisans as possible, maximizing the number of winning voters, not losers.

An examination of the language of law in the area of political representation, this book considers the development and recognition of group claims brought pursuant to the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause in Supreme Court opinions. In his analysis, Burke highlights the different, discursive strategies, broadly identified as liberal and communitarian, used by the Supreme Court to justify the outcomes of various cases, and he argues that no particular strategy of justification is inherently politically conservative or liberal and that no conception of political representation is unassailable. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will articulate a stable measure of fair representation. The Supreme Court offers one more forum in the deliberation over what is fair representation; however, it is not likely to provide minority communities with a legal answer to the problem of political underrepresentation. As such, this book tells the uncertain story of the creation of political fairness by the Supreme Court. The language used to characterize what is fair and representative, and the theoretical designs which the rhetoric reflects, allows us to formulate concepts of fair representation as legal standards evolve. By placing the debate over fair representation in not only political and legal but also philosophical terms, we are better able to understand the inevitable tensions that drive the concept of representation into new, ill-defined, and contentious areas.