Redistricting and the Congressional Black Caucus

• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X9502300203
• Date: 01 April 1995
• Published date: 01 April 1995
• Author: David T. Canon
• Subject Matter: Articles

REDISTRICTING
AND
THE
CONGRESSIONAL
BLACK
CAUCUS
DAVID T. CANON
University of Wisconsin-Madison
In this article
I explore the impact of the new Black-majority House districts on the power of the
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and the nature of Black representation in those districts.
These districts are controversial, largely because they are viewed as an embodiment of a "politics
of difference" (i.e., Blacks must represent Blacks), rather than a "politics of commonality." My
preliminary research contradicts this common view. I conclude that (a) the new size of the CBC
has substantially increased its political clout while simultaneously pushing it into the political
mainstream; and (b) newly elected African Americans in Congress are more likely to promote
the politics of commonality than the politics of difference. These conclusions are based on an
examination of the CBC’s role in passing legislation, their patterns of roll call voting, committee
assignments, and participation in the Democratic party leadership.
As a debate rages in the federal courts on the constitutionality of the
new
Black majority U.S. House districts, important substantive ques-
tions about these districts remain unexamined.’ How have the new
districts affected the nature of Black representation in Congress? How
have they influenced the clout and diversity of the Congressional
Black Caucus (CBC)? The new districts have obviously increased the
Author’s Note. This article is part of a larger book-length project on race, redistricting, and
representation to be published by the Umversity of Chicago Press. Although other parts of this
study are more fully developed, this is a very preliminary first cut at the analysis of the
institutional implications of redistricting. Therefore, the presentation is more descriptive and the
analysis less ngorous than it will be in its final form The early phases of this research were
conducted with Matthew Schousen and Patnck Sellers. I will be the sole author on the rest of
the project, but I remain indebted to them for their contributions to this project. I would also like
to thank Aaron Olver, Andrew Shaw, Gregory Streich, Robert Turner, and Steve Yonish for their
assistance in collecting and coding data for this project, and the Graduate School and Alumni
Research Foundation of the University of Wisconsin and the National Science Foundation (Grant
No SBR-9411028) for their generous support. Finally, Richard Merelman, Crawford Young,
and several anonymous reviewers tor the National Science Foundation provided helpful com-
ments. The standard claim of responsibility for all remaining errors applies with a vengeance.
AMERICAN POLITICS QUARTERLY, Vol 23 No 2, Apnl 1995 159-189
@ 1995 Sage Publications, Inc
159

---

160
power of the CBC, but their impact on the nature of Black repre-
sentation is more complex than previously noted. The popular press
typically cites the CBC’s role in advancing Black interests on impor-
tant issues such as the budget, the crime bill, or Haiti. Although this
role is central, the CBC
also has greatly expanded its focus in the 103rd
Congress to encompass many issues that have nothing to do with race.
The one-sided characterization of Black representation in Congress
flows from the tendency of political observers on both sides of the
political spectrum to view Black interests and Black politics as mono-
lithic.
This tendency is evident in the assessments of critics and propo-
nents of
the new Black-majority districts. Critics and supporters reach
opposite conclusions about the value and legitimacy of the new
districts: Critics argue that racial redistricting promotes &dquo;political
apartheid,&dquo; racial segregation, and the disenfranchisement of White
voters (Shaw v. Reno 1993; Themstrom 1987), whereas supporters
embrace the tactic as a means of electing more &dquo;authentic Black
representatives&dquo; (the term comes from Guinier 1991, 1102-9). But
both agree that the fundamental nature of representation provided in
these districts is the representation of Black interests by Black repre-
sentatives. This &dquo;Blacks must represent Blacks&dquo; or &dquo;politics of differ-
ence&dquo; school of thought is evaluated as either good or bad, but new
Black-majority districts are almost universally portrayed as an em-
bodiment of that perspective. Sandra Day O’Connor states this posi-
tion in the majority opinion in Shaw v. Reno (1993), &dquo;When a district
obviously is created solely to effectuate the perceived common inter-
ests of
one
racial group, elected officials are more likely to believe that
their primary obligation is to represent only the members of that group,
rather than their constituency as a whole&dquo; (p. 2827). The inescapable
conclusion from this line of reasoning is that White voters will not be
adequately represented in Black-majority districts.
I regard O’Connor’s position as a testable proposition rather than
an uncontroversial assumption. We need to know more about the
nature of representation in Black-majority districts before intelligent
policy choices and legal decisions can be formulated. My preliminary
research has produced two findings that should help inform this
debate: (a) the new size of the CBC has substantially increased its
political clout while simultaneously pushing it into the political main-

---

161
stream, and (b) newly elected African Americans in Congress are more
likely to promote a politics of commonality than a politics of differ-
ence. Elsewhere I explore the electoral roots of this biracial politics
(Canon, Schousen, and Sellers 1993, 1994) and my research-in-pro-
gress is rigorously examining the second of these two points.2 This
article will provide evidence for the first claim by examining roll call
behavior, committee assignments, and party leadership. I begin by
defining some key concepts.
THE
POLITICS OF
DIFFERENCE
AND
THE
POLITICS OF
COMMONALITY
Should African Americans have congressional districts explicitly
drawn to maximize their political power, even if it requires torturous
district lines? Once the districts are created, should Black repre-
sentatives focus their attention on Black constituents, or attempt to
represent the entire district? The basis for answering these questions
is found in the debate raging in the minority politics and women’s
studies literature concerning the &dquo;politics of difference&dquo; versus the
&dquo;politics of commonality&dquo; (Eisenstein 1988; Gilligan 1982; Gitlin
1993; MacKinnon 1987; Taylor 1992). This debate centers around the
question, &dquo;Should politics be organized around certain universal prin-
ciples such as ’life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,’ or should one
recognize that the political process is not neutral in applying these
principles to people of diverse ethnic, cultural, racial, and gender
identities?&dquo; How society answers this question influences policy out-
comes. A
politics of commonality strives to provide equal protection
of the laws without special treatment for any single group, whereas a
politics of difference calls for proper remedies for previous discrimi-
nation and exclusion. Given this basic definition, it is easy to see how
Black-majority districts are viewed as an example of the politics of
difference. Although this was clearly the intent of creating the new
districts, the impact of those districts has been to promote a politics of
commonality.
The early history of the CBC does not presage their recent move
toward to politics of commonality. Until recently, the CBC was firmly
placed on the &dquo;politics of difference&dquo; side of the debate. The formative

---

162
political experiences for the founding members of the CBC were in
the civil rights movement of the 1960s. The battle against racism and
discrimination that began in the streets continued in the halls of
Congress as the CBC took on the self-proclaimed role as the &dquo;con-
science of the institution.&dquo; Many members saw themselves as spokes-
persons for all African Americans, not only those in their congres-
sional districts. Their representation of Black interests was without
political bounds. &dquo;We fought publicly with Jimmy Carter almost every
day of his administration,&dquo; William Clay (D-MO) recently said. &dquo;It’s
no
different, Democrat or Republican. We will challenge anybody who
seeks to undermine the basic interests of our people&dquo; (quoted in
Cooper 1993a, 24).
The distinguishing feature, then, of the politics of difference as
practiced by current members of the House is to perceive politics in
racial terms and to see one’s primary constituency as Black voters
(either nationally, in one’s district, or both). Some of the freshman
members are more subtle than their senior colleagues in stating this
perspective, although sharing its basic premises. Corrine Brown
(D-FL) talked about the improvement in representation she would
bring to the Black voters in her district, saying, &dquo;They have been
represented by people who haven’t paid attention to their districts. I
don’t say that White candidates can’t represent the district. They can.
They just haven’t&dquo; (Cooper 1994, 34). Brown shied away from explic-
itly saying &dquo;Blacks must represent Blacks,&dquo; but Bennie Thompson,
who was elected to replace Mike Espy in Mississippi, was quite blunt.
Thompson criticized his predecessor, who was noted for his modera-
tion on racial issues and his appeals to White voters, saying that Blacks
voters &dquo;don’t like how the district has gone...