Prometheus 6   

Editorial run

Capitol Hill Cross-Fire

The gun lobby in Congress, as brazen as it is shameless, recently scored an alarming coup among compliant lawmakers by jamming a routine appropriations bill with amendments to undermine federal laws that track illicit firearms. The legislative blitz, engineered by the National Rifle Association, took the House Appropriations Committee by surprise last month. Yet it was approved 31 to 30, in bipartisan homage to the N.R.A.'s power to stir politicians' fear and obeisance.

Less Power, More Influence
By RICHARD H. PILDES

&hellip:In the 1980's, Congress and the courts therefore required "safe" minority districts, in which black voters would be able to elect their candidates regardless of how whites voted. But with some districts intentionally drawn to be dominated by blacks, surrounding districts became even more dominated by whites.

Many found this solution troubling - including supporters of race-conscious public policies, like affirmative action, in other areas. But in the electoral context of a generation ago, this approach seemed the only way to create equal opportunities for black voters in a one-party system.

…The rise of two-party politics in the South helps explain why: a vibrant Republican Party now threatened to take over state government. That pressure united black and white Democrats. As black Democrats in Georgia saw it, what good are seats in a political body more hostile overall to the interests of black voters?

…The Supreme Court was remarkably astute about the new South's new politics. The Voting Rights Act, it ruled, does not require the election of black candidates for their own sake. Its purpose is to ensure equal opportunities and meaningful political influence and participation. If that goal is best realized by designing democratic institutions that foster interracial coalitions, the court concluded, the law should not stand in the way.

This is much the same as the court's approach in the affirmative action cases, in which it allowed university administrators flexibility to decide how much to weigh race in admission decisions. Similarly, in the most important voting-rights decision in a generation, the court concluded that the law did not dictate a single solution. The states now have some leeway to decide exactly what political equality means.

Difficult decisions lie ahead. As a first step toward a new understanding of political equality, Georgia v. Ashcroft was legally difficult, but practically easy; black legislators were not seriously at risk of losing in the less "safe," more integrated new districts. But as the four dissenters in the case worried, deciding what amounts to meaningful political power, and what tradeoffs to accept in pursuit of it, is fraught with controversy and uncertainty. Looming are more profound questions, like whether political equality may sometimes require black candidates giving up safe seats.

Looking deeper at racial profiling
By Jack McDevitt and Lisa Bailey, 8/2/2003

THE RECENT Globe series on the enforcement of traffic stops has provided a service by documenting some of the costs associated with racial disparities in traffic stops.

Previous media stories have focused on particular cases of individual traffic stops and allegations of bias. The analysis has taken an important step in moving the discussion beyond anecdotes and toward a more systematic analysis of one aspect of the racial profiling discussion: the role race, age, and gender play in the decision to give either warnings or citations to motorists stopped by the police.

The analysis has documented that disparate treatment by law enforcement has significant monetary costs to those who are treated differently. The two most significant costs are the additional expense of receiving a citation rather than a warning and the additional surcharges on the driver's insurance premium.

While such monetary costs are relevant to the discussion of racial profiling, disparate treatment produces more dramatic social costs. Individuals singled out for disproportionate enforcement will experience personal costs in terms of embarrassment and a feeling of being treated as a criminal just because they belong to a particular group. As a consequence, those who are subjected to disparate traffic enforcement may experience a loss of respect and trust in their local police.

This is important as more law enforcement agencies adopt a community policing philosophy that relies on a high level of trust between the police and their community. Individuals who believe they have been singled out for harsher treatment because of their race, ethnicity, or gender will be much less willing to work with the police when asked for their help to solve public safety problems in their community.

Cartoons
The Boondocks allows me to make this comment without drawing more odious basketball player/Denver cheerleader googles. Thank you.
Jeff Danziger diagnoses the Democratic primary hunt. (BTW, I always…and I mean always thought Kerry looked like Herman Munster with a bad toupee. Am I wrong for saying that?)
Ted Rall documents the process involved in deciding whether Liberia gets U.S. assistance.

posted by Prometheus 6 at 8/2/2003 07:35:37 AM |