CORRESPONDENCErnLetter From Virginiarnby Anne Marie MorganrnRedistricting ApartheidrnElbridge Gerry’s infamous salamanderrndistrict pales in comparison to the monster-rnlike menagerie birthed in redistrictedrnstates that fall under the preclearancernrequirement of Section Five of the federalrnVoting Rights Act. Although Virginia’srnstate constitution requires thatrn”every electoral district shall be composedrnof contiguous and compact territory,”rnthe feds overruled it and mandatedrnthat Virginia’s recently reapportionedrnelectoral boundaries incorporate districtsrncontoured like a hooded cobra, snappingrnalligator, terrier head, half-eatenrnapple, seahorse, rooster, and an upsidedown,rntailless Trojan horse. One serpentinerndistrict is now 180 miles longrnand only four miles wide in one section,rnspanning the rural tobacco counties ofrnSouthside Virginia to urban Portsmouthrnnear the Atlantic Coast—a violation ofrnthe historical norm that election districtsrnencompass “communities of interest”rnand not split the political subdivisionsrnof localities. To accumulate the prescribedrnpercentage of minority votersrnper “majority-minority” district, evenrnsome voting precincts are split under Virginia’srnnew plans, a source of considerablernconsternation and confusion tornwould-be voters, who go to the polls andrnfind unfamiliar names.rnThe 1965 Voting Rights Act departedrnfrom previous civil rights laws in that itrnsingled out the old Confederacy statesrnfor unique regulation. Under congressionalrnpresumption that low voter registrationrnor turnout signified deliberaternracial discrimination, the act applied automaticallyrnto anv state that fell underrnone or both of the following conditions:rnuse of a literacy test as a prerequisite forrnvoting in the 1964 presidential election,rnand otcr registration and turnout of lessrnthan 50 percent in that election. Althoughrnthe black vote provided the marginrnof victory for Lyndon Johnson in Virginiarnin 1964, under both counts the actrnwas applied to Virginia, with one immediaterneffect being termination of its literacyrntest—a test that had been liberallyrngiven for decades to both white Republicansrnand anti-Byrd Democrats.rnIn 1970, the act was extended for fivernyears, and in 1975 for another seven.rnSince 1965, Section Five of the act hasrnhad the effect of requiring all Virginiarnvoting law changes—congressional, state,rnand local electoral boundaries, votingrnregistration or procedures, designationrnof polling places, terms of all elective offices,rnparty plans, nomination processes,rnshifts from elective to appointive offices,rnredistricting patterns, methods ofrnelection—to be submitted for “preclearance”rnto the U. S. Department ofrnJustice or to the U. S. District Court forrnthe District of Columbia. Any state orrnlocality submitting changes was burdenedrnwith proving that the changesrnwere not discriminatory in purpose orrneffect.rnIn 1982, the act was extended for 25rnmore years and further amended, withrnCongress attaching an additional “results”rntest in Section Two. In 1987, thernJustice Department altered its regulationsrnto correspond to the 1982 revision.rnThese new regulations made it obviousrnthat all changes submitted for preclearancernwould be denied if the Departmentrnof Justice thought that the proposalsrnwould cause a racially discriminatoryrn”result”—even if no deliberaternintent could be proven.rnThe effect of preclearance is enormous,rnas jurisdictions bend o’cr backwardsrnto avoid cverr the slightest,rnunanticipated appearance of racialrndiscrimination. ‘Fhe requirement hasrnproven to be an onerous burden to statesrnand localities: in practical effect, no matterrnhow convoluted or strange the district,rnif Justice bureaucrats think thatrn”majoritv-minorit” voting districts canrnbe carved in a locality or throughout thernstate, then a jurisdiction must carvernthem out or have its plans denied—evenrnif a district has lost minority populationrnsince its previous preclearance approvalrnat the last population census. The newrndistrict boundaries are, paradoxically,rnmodern de jure segregation.rnPrior to Virginia’s most recent redistrictingrnconflagration, a dozen municipalitiesrnhad their plans altered throughrnDepartment of Justice objections, consentrndecrees, or court orders. Richmondrnwas enjoined by a federal court orderrnfrom holding councilmanic elections forrnseven years, until local officials backedrndown and consented to single-memberrnward elections. Newport News, whichrndecided through an 85 percent favorablernvote in a local referendum to directlyrnelect a mayor, was forbidden torndo so by the Justice Department uponrndiscovery that city officials had not sufficientlyrnprecleared two other minorrnchanges. And these examples representrnonly the tip of the iceberg. For neadyrnthirty years, the state of Virginia hasrnstumbled over its share of redistrictingrnobstacles, including complaints bv specialrninterest groups (especially the ACLUrnand the NAACP), Justice, and the U. S.rnSupreme Court and federal court imposedrninterventions.rnLast year’s redistricting fights over Virginia’srnlegislative and congressional districtsrnincluded squabbles over the definitionrnof “black majoritv”: did this termrnsignify a majority of the total black populationrnor rather a majority of the “voting-rnage” black population, as assertedrnby the NAACP. The latter interpretationrnprevailed. The Department of Justicerneven rejected the reapportionmentrnplan for the Virginia House of Delegatesrnon the recommendation of the ACLl^rnand NAACP, which asserted that thernlegislature’s numerical increase in blackmajorityrndistricts was insufficient andrnthat at least one more such districtrncould be sculptured. This grievance wasrnfiled in spite of the fact that the initialrnHouse plan v’as approved by the GeneralrnAssemblv’s joint Black Caucus andrnby the legislature’s Democratic majorityrnand signed by the state’s black Governor,rnDouglas Wilder. A chastened legislaturernthen bowed to ACLU wishesrnand, after three tries, including a gubernatorialrnveto and amendments, submittedrna state Senate plan that the JusticernDepartment would authorize. Thisrnplan’s division of the representation piern(among other things) handed Richmondrnyet another senator—in spite of the factrnthat the citv had lost population sincern1980.rnThe legislature-approved plans werernnoteworthy for their incumbency protectionrnof insider Democratic lawmakersrnand for their punishment of nonpoliticallyrncorrect outsiders. Republicans, cn-rn40/CHRONICLESrnrnrn