E-Mail This Article to a Friend Back to the drawing board? (continued)

EVEN AMONG ATTORNEYS, voting-rights law is regarded as dauntingly arcane. But since the outcomes of both BPTF and Meza will be decided on this technically convoluted battleground, a quick synopsis of the principles involved is in order. For starters, the outcome of both lawsuits will hinge on the central provision of the Voting Rights Act — that nonwhite voters must receive equal political opportunities and the chance to elect candidates of their choice. It’s a fine-sounding mandate; it’s also so vague that both sides will invoke it to make their respective cases. Voting-rights precedent also introduces "rough proportionality" as a factor; the term means, for example, that if a certain racial group makes up 25 percent of a state’s population, it should ideally control 25 percent of that state’s legislative districts. This isn’t an absolute rule, however, and there’s disagreement about which criteria — population, voting-age population, or citizen voting-age population — should be used when evaluating proportionality.

Not all voting-rights law is this murky, however. In the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision in the 1986 landmark case Thornburg v. Gingles, anyone arguing that the second section of the Voting Rights Act was violated (as the plaintiffs are here) has to prove three things. First, they must propose an alternative district in which the "protected group" — here, Boston’s Latinos and African-Americans — can constitute a majority. Second, they have to show the protected group’s members share the same political interests and vote for the same candidates. And third, as mentioned above, they must show that white voting habits make victories by minority candidates almost impossible. (These last two requirements are often labeled "racially polarized voting.") If you’ve proved a Voting Rights Act violation, meanwhile, you’re well on your way toward proving a violation of the 14th Amendment — but you’re not quite there, because this requires establishing intent as well as effect.

For example, while Latinos would constitute an absolute majority in the alternative Second Suffolk District proposed by the Meza plaintiffs, voting-age Latinos with citizenship would still make up less than 50 percent of its population. The defense says this violates the requirement that members of the protected group make up a majority of the new district; the plaintiffs insist it doesn’t. The plaintiffs also cite a long list of local elections that, some academic expert will swear, proves that racially polarized voting exists in Boston, and that candidates of color usually can’t win in a majority-white district. The defense cites its own long list that, another academic expert will swear, proves the exact opposite; as a result, the defense claims, legislative districts like Finneran’s 12th Suffolk — where black voters still make up 46 percent of the eligible voting-age population — satisfy the core demand of the Voting Rights Act by giving black candidates a reasonable chance to win.

Heather Gerken, a Harvard Law School professor and expert in voting-rights law, notes that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the case of Georgia v. Ashcroft — which increased the latitude courts are supposed to give state legislatures involved in redistricting — could benefit the defense. "Now that the [Supreme] Court has been more deferential to states, it’s going to be harder for voting-rights plaintiffs to win under the new standard," she says. However, she also thinks the extremely high concentration of minority voters in the Sixth Suffolk District could help the plaintiffs in BPTF. "If I were the plaintiffs, I’d be pretty pleased about that evidence," Gerken says. "Under the new standard [in Georgia v. Ashcroft], it’s easier for the state to say it pushed minority populations down in order to help them. But it’s still going to be hard for the state to say it pushed the minority population up to 98 percent to help voters of color."

The outcome could also hinge on another question that will be posed next week and explored as the trials unfold. And it’s one that’s much easier for the layperson to grasp: is Boston (or, in the case of Meza, Chelsea) a racist city? Here’s why the answer will matter. While legal precedent says the court needs to consider the factors outlined above, it also requires judges in voting-rights cases to assess the "totality of circumstances," a catch-all term that applies here to the historic experience of blacks and Latinos in Greater Boston. If the judges are on the fence, making the case that blacks and Latinos have suffered debilitating and widespread discrimination — or haven’t — could nudge the outcome in either direction. Gerken explains that the Supreme Court introduced "totality of circumstances" to keep voting-rights law from becoming rigidly formulaic. "This is how the Supreme Court keeps a back door for flexibility," she says. "You could have a very mechanical sort of test, but the Supreme Court has said, ‘We don’t want a test that’s that mechanical.’ They want the flexibility for judges to make decisions on a case-by-case basis."

This is where things should get very interesting. Here, for example, is a partial list of charges made by the Meza plaintiffs: the Chelsea city clerk has "often insulted and intimidated" Latinos seeking to register to vote. Latino candidates are targeted for minor infractions, like leaving political signs unattended or getting too close to polling sites, far more frequently than their white counterparts. Chelsea’s city councilors have "proposed legislation aimed at keeping the Latino community from using public areas surrounding Chelsea City Hall and from utilizing a public park in a predominantly white area of Chelsea." And whatever shortfalls Chelsea’s Latinos experience in the areas of income, education, and residential status — as well as compromised voter-registration rights and low turnout — are the result of this endemic local discrimination.

There’s no comparable list of grievances in the pretrial brief submitted by the Black Political Task Force plaintiffs, just an almost demure observation that "blacks and Hispanics have been the victims of discrimination affecting their participation in the political process, including discriminatory voting practices as well as widespread public and private discrimination." But according to Nadine Cohen — an attorney with the Boston Bar Association’s Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, which is serving as co-counsel in both cases — the BPTF plaintiffs plan to introduce hundreds of pieces of evidence documenting the history of race relations in the city. "We have affidavits from numerous witnesses in Boston," Cohen says. "They basically detail past discrimination in areas like housing — the [Boston Housing Authority] maintained segregated developments until 1988, 1989. Mortgage-lending discrimination, predatory lending that has adversely impacted communities of color in Boston. There’s some information — not a lot — on schools; there’s information about employment discrimination, different disparity studies that the state has put out over the years showing disparities in workforces, in contracting, all sorts of things. There’s information about the problems of the MBTA around discrimination against employees of color.... There’s every issue that’s been raised over the years around discrimination, particularly court findings going back to when there were virtually no people of color in the Boston police and fire departments. There’s just so much."

In other words, the history of race and racism in Boston will receive sustained attention as the case moves forward. And it won’t be restricted to the confines of the Moakley Courthouse. For several months, Boston VOTE has been traversing the city conducting informational meetings about the lawsuits. The group is urging residents of Boston’s largely minority neighborhoods to attend the trial, a tactic aimed at putting pressure on the three-judge panel as it hears evidence and makes its final decisions. At a recent meeting on Blue Hill Avenue, in a police station serving Mattapan and Dorchester, a rapid-fire, 20-minute presentation on the lawsuits drew an enthusiastic response from a predominantly black, largely middle-aged and elderly crowd. After explaining the basics of the case to the audience, Atiya Dangleben compared the Sixth Suffolk District to the all-black townships created in apartheid-era South Africa. "This is basically a political apartheid-type situation, where you have a line drawn around people of color," she said. "That’s right!" someone shouted. "What you have is the absolute minimum amount of political influence people of color in Boston can have," Dangleben continued.

After the meeting, Dangleben defended her use of loaded language. "I do use that analogy, referring to the Sixth Suffolk, because that’s really the nucleus of the problem," she said. "In order to minimize the number of districts where communities of color can elect a representative all the way down to five, when you have a population that’s half the city, you have to start here, draw in the middle of this huge population of color the most compact district, and then crack up the surrounding areas.

"[Boston’s] a very racially tense city, and it’s because of institutional factors that continue to perpetuate," she added. "I think [we need] to bring this issue to light, and really take the blanket off the racial undertones and let them be overtones."

The defense, of course, will offer its own take on race relations. Attorneys for the defense declined to comment on both cases. But court documents hint at the strategy the defense will pursue. In its pretrial brief, the defense claims that unsuccessful nonwhite candidates in Boston have been stymied not by racist voting habits among whites, but by deficiencies in their own campaigns. It dismisses the plaintiffs’ contention that black and Latino voters should be represented by black and Latino candidates as a regrettable instance of "electoral balkanization." It argues that lumping black, Latino, and Asian voters together under the heading "voters of color" incorrectly suggests that these groups’ political interests are automatically identical. And for good measure, it accuses the plaintiffs of trying to use litigation as a shortcut to political power. "Political victories are the fruit of organizing, energizing and mobilizing an electorate to turn out the vote for a particular candidate, not the filing of lawsuits," it states. It’ll be interesting to see how these arguments go over in court — especially if Boston VOTE and other advocacy groups manage to stack the courtroom.

THE OUTCOME OF the two cases may not be known for some time. Closing arguments are scheduled for mid December, and it’s impossible to say how quickly the judicial panel will issue its verdicts. If the court orders some or all of the contested House districts to be redrawn, the plaintiffs will have achieved a major victory — both by besting Finneran and by improving the odds faced by candidates of color. Under alternative plans created by the plaintiffs, for example, the Latino voting-age population in the Second Suffolk would increase from 32 percent to 51 percent. The Sixth Suffolk’s minority-age voting population would drop from 98 percent to 73 percent, with three heavily black precincts returned to Finneran’s 12th Suffolk. The 12th, in turn, would see its minority voting-age population increase from 61 to 70 percent — and the 11th Suffolk would once again become "majority-minority." If the court urges the legislature to adopt some or all of the plaintiffs’ proposals, the ensuing districts would — on paper — be friendlier territory for candidates of color.

Even if the three-judge panel rules for the plaintiffs in both cases, however, it could be some time before the re-redistricting is completed. If the defense decided to appeal to the US Supreme Court, the cases could stretch on for years. And some political observers caution that the lawsuits, even if they succeed and yield quick results, won’t be a panacea for minority political woes. Bruce Bolling — who was Boston’s first African-American council president — agrees that the lines of Boston’s House districts should be redrawn to benefit candidates of color. But he warns that, even if some or all of the plaintiffs’ revised plans for redrawing Boston’s House districts are implemented, it won’t automatically lead to an influx of promising new black and Latino candidates. "You’ve got to have a strong candidate that has the ability to draw support from a broader community, not just blacks or other people of color," Bolling says. "When you don’t have that, or that comes too infrequently, it’s very difficult to build a critical mass and sustain it.

"Those who participate influence who’s elected, and those who choose not to participate for whatever reason are not in the equation," Bolling adds. "Look at voting patterns in Boston — you see high turnout in South Boston, in Hyde Park, in West Roxbury, in several other areas of the city. They tend to be more conservative in their voting patterns, and they have a disproportionate influence on citywide elections because they have a higher percentage of turnout. Those communities shouldn’t be castigated in any way because they have a disproportionate influence; they should be applauded because they participate in the process and they understand how to influence it."

Joe Heisler, host of Boston Neighborhood Network’s Talk of the Neighborhoods, makes a similar point. "I’m sympathetic to what they’re trying to do," Heisler says of the plaintiffs. "[But] all the time and energy and resources being spent on these lawsuits might be better spent on recruiting good candidates to run in districts like Speaker Finneran’s, which has a majority of people of color, and yet he is unopposed year after year. It’s not as though there’s not the potential for some very good candidates — I interview a lot of people, and I can’t tell you how many I talk to and say, ‘They’d make a good lawmaker.’ But for some reason the history continues."

Still, according to George Pillsbury, the executive director of Mass VOTE — which, like Boston VOTE, is a plaintiff in the two cases — it’s a mistake to underestimate the challenges facing aspiring minority candidates. White voters in many parts of Boston routinely vote in a manner that makes it impossible for nonwhite candidates to win, he insists: "It does exist on the ground, it’s real, and we’ve seen it election after election."

"There have been, maybe, some gains in some other areas [of race relations]," Pillsbury adds. "But when it comes to politics, there are certain people in certain neighborhoods that absolutely feel entitled to control Boston politics, and they’ve shown signs of really fighting tooth and nail and of not giving an inch."

Adam Reilly can be reached at areilly[a]phx.com