Dear _____________________:

As the legislature approaches the deadline for enacting a redistricting bill this year, we write to express our sincere hope that the state will not make the costly and divisive mistakes made nearly ten years ago. These mistakes resulted in lawsuits brought by individuals of both political parties when race and ethnicity were used to draw clearly unconstitutional legislative and congressional districts. 

The litigation of the past does not need to be repeated during this round of redistricting. This time the citizens of your state deserve compact, neighborhood- and community based voting districts that unite us as Americans, regardless of our skin color or ancestry. Common neighborhood issues such as schools, crime, roads, and job opportunities are much more important than race.

The racial and ethnic gerrymandering that pervaded past plans should not be allowed to infect new plans, regardless of how cleverly it may be disguised. We should not have seats drawn to ensure the election of a person with a specific skin color or ethnic heritage, any more than we should have districts drawn to ensure the defeat of a person because of his race or ethnicity. 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed to protect minority voters, not minority or majority politicians. Nor should race and ethnicity be used as an instrument to protect incumbent officeholders. After all, literacy tests were effective at protecting incumbents, but they too were proven to be illegal. 

In the same vein, political affiliation cannot be used as a proxy for race. Districts that resemble Rorshach tests won't pass constitutional scrutiny if race correlates perfectly with the boundaries and is the real reason for the line-drawing, even if partisan affiliation is claimed as the justification. In the landmark civil rights case Gomillion v. Lightfoot, decided over 40 years ago, a city redrew its boundaries to exclude black citizens. Everyone knew that the city was motivated by race, not political affiliation.

The Supreme Court has heard over 10 racial gerrymandering cases from 1993 through 2000. In each one the Court found that race may not be used as the predominant factor in drawing districts. (See enclosed legal opinion from Daniel E. Troy, who successfully argued Bush v. Vera to the Supreme Court during the 1995-96 term.) These decisions also make clear that directives from the U.S. Department of Justice should be reviewed with a skeptical eye by the state's own lawyers. 

It is our belief that the redistricting process should be a legislative one. The courts should not have a role in this process unless the law has been violated. However, we stand ready to challenge every plan that results in non-traditional, non-compact voting districts that separate neighbor from neighbor on the basis of race. Texas, North Carolina, Louisiana, Florida, New York, South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia spent enormous amounts of money defending these improperly drawn districts during the last 10 years, to no avail. More importantly, the creation and defense of these racially gerrymandered districts poisons the esteem citizens hold for the legislative process and their legislators. 

We are confident this litigation can be avoided during this round by creating proper districts, but remain vigilant to the results you produce. We remain committed to helping your state avoid the mistakes of the past. Many of us and our staffs are available to testify before your redistricting committees and assist in reviewing redistricting procedures. 

Please contact us through Mr. Roger Clegg, General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, at 202-639-0803 or Mr. Edward Blum, director of legal affairs at the American Civil Rights Institute, at (703) 327-1115.

Sincerely yours,

Susan Au Allen
US Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce

Phyllis Berry Myers
Center for New Black Leadership

Edward Blum
American Civil Rights Institute

Clint Bolick
Institute for Justice

Linda Chavez
Center for Equal Opportunity

Lynn Hogue
Southeastern Legal Foundation

Terry Pell
Center for Individual Rights

Kimberly Schuld
Independent Women's Forum

Abigail Thernstrom 
Manhattan Institute