Communities of Interest, Social Justice, and Congressional Redistricting: The Case of Louisiana's Fourth District in the 1990s

Introduction "MAJORITY-MINORITY" ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL TO A SOCIAL justice perspective. These are voting areas in which at least half the population belongs to a minority group that has historically had less political power than dominant majority groups. Writing as counsel for the Congressional Black Caucus, the late, retired federal judge A. Leon Higginbotham (1995: 666) put it this way: The Caucus believes that the minority-majority districts ... are Indispensable in the fight for full integration of the American political landscape. Minority-majority districting is only a specific illustration of the more general goal of all districting, particularly single-member districting to allow district representation of numerical minorities whose votes otherwise would be submerged by those of the majority. In the context of American history and contemporary reality, minority-majority districting is often the only way of fully achieving the pluralist aspirations of American politics and remedying the longstanding exclusion of African Americans from full participation in government. In the fall of 1995, we were approached by the U.S. Department of Justice and asked to conduct social demographic research and analysis on the fourth congressional district of Louisiana. The fourth district had been a majority African American district since redistricting was done by the state legislature in 1992. We were asked to develop a research report and to testify for the United States in ongoing litigation (Hays v. Louisiana) over the fourth district, which was represented by Congressman Cleo Fields. Our involvement was motivated by a number of social justice concerns that were articulated well by Judge Higginbotham (1995: 668): Louisiana's District Four and other challenged majority-minority districts have served to move the United States beyond its deplorable history and toward the ideal of representative democracy, one that encourages the inclusion of all Americans in political discourse. Progress has been slow indeed; only after the 1992 congressional elections did the number of African-American members of Congress rise from 26 to 40. Absent the minority-majority districts that facilitated this change, America cannot realistically hope to soon achieve a racially integrated legislature that will adequately express the experiences and views of all Americans. This article focuses primarily on our analytical approach to key issues and on the statistical results that we provided in our testimony. But, we also recount our interaction with the Justice legal team and some of our experiences in depositions and in federal court. We begin with a chronology of events leading up to our work and those that transpired after we completed our research and testimony. Chronology of the Fourth District in the 1990s In the aftermath of the 1990 census, the Louisiana legislature faced a difficult task. Due to low population growth, Louisiana had lost a seat in Congress. In the 1980s, one of eight congressional districts was majority African American. By 1990, the African American population represented 31% of the state's population. At the urging of Justice, the NAACP, and other advocacy groups, the legislature's aim in redistricting after 1990 was to delineate two majority-minority districts out of seven districts. The Louisiana legislature redrew congressional districts in early 1992. Passed in May 1992, new state statutes created two majority African American congressional districts: the second district in New Orleans (held by incumbent William Jefferson) and a new fourth district that ran in a narrow band from Shreveport to the northwest corner of the state and then down the Mississippi River to Baton Rouge (no incumbent). With a minority population share of 62%, the fourth district is shown in the top panel of Figure 1 (found at the end of the article). …