Controversies in Minority Voting: The Voting Rights Act in Perspective.

United States Electoral Systems: Their Impact on Women and Minorities.

The old proverb tells of two blind men feeling different parts of the same elephant, describing what they feel, but not realizing that they are feeling the same object. The contributors to these two volumes realize they are touching the same behemoth-in fact, there is some overlap in the authors and descriptions--but the object of their attention is so large that there is a need for these anthologies-and more.

Each of these collections touches on aspects of representation of excluded or disadvantaged groups in the American polity. The Grofman/Davidson book is the narrower of the two-focusing on numerous issues surrounding the Voting Rights Act (VRA), as amended, and, therefore, is largely limited to consideration of how Blacks and Latinos are affected by this important legislation. The Rule/Zimmerman reader is more broadly framed. Rather than worrying about the quality or impact of the VRA per se, the contributors to this volume look at different electoral systems and how and why these systems have differential impacts on women, Blacks, and Latinos. Specific articles consider these questions for Congress, state legislatures, elected judges, county commissions, city councils, and school boards. The overlap between the volumes is obvious; the emphases differ.

The questions addressed in each volume are important for both theoretical and policy reasons. How well representation, particularly of populations that are in a numerical minority or who have a history of being victims of discrimination, occurs is very important in a system that purports to be a democracy. And whether or not the use of litigation and judicially devised remedies are effective or efficient means of achieving better representation has both strategic and tactical implications.

At the conclusion of reading these two books in tandem, one is struck by (1) how much social scientists and "the voting rights bar" (see Caldeira's article in Grofman and Davidson) have been able to learn in this area, (2) how much is left to be learned, (3) how much change has occurred in minority and female representation in recent years, and (4) how much more must be done if minorities and females are to be represented equitably in the U.S. political system. For both scholars and activists, the glass is both half full and half empty. Furthermore, as Grofman and Davidson (p. 300) argue, the positions of adversaries in this highly-charged arena "are considerably closer than some of them might be prepared to admit."

What do we know? Among other things, numerical minorities who are geographically concentrated can have their representation increased by purposefully drawn single member districts (SMD). SMDs work to the advantage of Blacks more commonly than they do for Latinos or women. Other electoral systems--e.g., multimember districts, cumulative voting, limited voting, or the single-transferable vote--are more favorable to women or to minorities who are not so geographically concentrated. But voting systems are only one type of barrier to minority or female representation, and a singular focus on such systems ignores the impact of such factors as white male incumbency or the incumbency advantage in campaign financing or the interaction of these factors.

The VRA has been responsible for remarkable changes in both black and Latino representation, but women are not covered by this landmark legislation, and neither of the covered groups is close to equitable representation (however defined). Indeed, the emphasis on using SMDs with extraordinary majorities of a minority population to assure election of minority officials precludes achievement of proportional representation as long as there is racially polarized voting. More creativity is needed in thinking about the goals and means of the voting rights movement, and Guinier's contribution to the Grofman and Davidson reader is a notable first step.

These works set the stage for further theoretical and empirical work. Grofman and Davidson promise another volume examining voting rights issues in covered southern states. More work needs to be undertaken to explore explicitly the trade-off between increasing Black and female representation clarified by the Rule and Zimmerman contributors. Alternative remedies need to be discussed, a la Still in Rule and Zimmerman, to break down traditional blinders on thinking about this issue. And scholars need to enumerate the inevitable limits of having to use judicial prescriptions for what are inherently broader diseases.

These volumes provide valuable food for thought and remind us that more work is yet to be done. Each is worth reading and would be useful in the classroom.

Joseph Stewart, Jr.
University of Texas at Dallas