Rush holds that there are other drawbacks of proportional representation. For one, he notes that while the latter
system may lessen wasted votes, any election that results in some candidates not elected fosters wasted votes as
well. Further, he asserts that whereas minority rights advocates seek to prevent dilution of voting influence,
supporters of proportional representation are more concerned with maintaining majority rule. Finally, though characterizing
Engstrom's alternative electoral system proposals as somewhere between American and European representation procedures,
Rush states that juxtaposing such mechanisms onto the U. S.
constitutional system will not meet objectives "unless we also implement other, fundamental changes to the
structure of the government and the rules by which politics and elections are conducted" (p. 81).
Following their respective presentation of positions, Engstrom and Rush include excerpts of nine U. S. Supreme
Court decisions that depict developing voting rights jurisprudence. The authors recognize a contradiction in rulings
pertaining to this topic: that while the Court insists individuals be treated fairly, a strict color-blind approach
will adversely impact certain political groups. The cases selected are Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), Reynolds
v. Sims (1964), Wright v. Rockefeller (1964), United Jewish Organization of Williamsburgh v. Carey (1975), City
of Mobile v. Bolden (1980), Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), Shaw v. Reno (1993), Holder v. Hall (1994), and Bush v.
Vera (1996).
Several recently published books similarly deal with the issue of minorities and voting rights. David A. Bositis's
(1998) edited book contains chapters analyzing the effects of redistricting on black and Hispanic populations in
the 1990s. J. Morgan
Page 485 begins here
Kousser (1999) examines the milestones of the "Second Reconstruction" period, from 1954 to 1994, when
he believes that Congress, interest groups, and the
courts improved federal protections for minority rights. He then offers case studies of attempts to deny minority
representation in two cities and three states together with a critique of Supreme Court rulings emanating from
the latter controversies. David T. Canon's (1999) study taps empirical methods and personal interviews with members
of Congress and their staff in order to illustrate the advantages of majority-minority districts. His findings
contradict complaints from Caucasian citizens that they are displaced by such electoral arrangements. The most
recent book on redistricting as it relates to minority voting rights is by Mark S. Monmonier (2001). He describes
how the George Bush's White House supported majority-minority districts under the assumption that they would dilute
Democratic influence in other areas. Though this strategy produced some Republican gains, it also augmented minority
representation in Congress. Employing a plethora of maps, Monmonier
explains reapportionment scenarios and their consequences.
The Rush-Engstrom offering is a valuable contribution to the literature on minority voting rights. Obviously seeking
to convince readers of their respective positions, both writers cite statistics showing the extent to which their
preferred election systems are being utilized. Both authors integrate many Supreme Court decisions found at the
end of the book into their essays, along with a few which are not excerpted (Miller v. Johnson, 1995; Shaw v. Hunt,
1996). However, Rush explores the philosophical foundation of concepts such as majority rule, representative government,
and the public interest in a way not found in Engstrom's essay. The combination of tradition, present laws and
a general reluctance to revise election system components probably makes Rush's arguments more convincing if not
more
comprehensive than those of Engstrom.
Public officials, advocacy groups, and citizens alike should read this book as the post-2000 reapportionment process
unfolds. It provides resources to evaluate past trends, contemporary procedures, and future possibilities. The
question of fair and effective representation has been with us since the creation of the republic and will continue
beyond the current maelstrom over majority-minority districts.
REFERENCES:
Bositis, David A. 1998. REDISTRICTING AND MINORITY REPRESENTATION. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Canon, David T. 1999. RACE, REDISTRICTING, AND REPRESENTATION: THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF BLACK MAJORITY DISTRICTS.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kousser, J. Morgan. 1999. COLORBLIND INJUSTICE: MINORITY VOTING RIGHTS AND THE UNDOING OF THE SECOND RECONSTRUCTION.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Monmonier, Mark S. 2001. BUSHMANDERS AND BULLWINKLES: HOW POLITICIANS MANIPULATE ELECTRONIC MAPS AND CENSUS DATA
TO WIN ELECTIONS. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Page 486 begins here
CASE REFERENCES:
Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 1996.
City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994).
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995).
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996).
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).
United Jewish Organization of Williamsburgh v. Carey, 423 U.S. 945 (1975).
Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U.S. 52 (1964).
****************************************************************
Copyright 2001 by the author, Samuel B. Hoff.