In an effort to maximize the representation of African Americans and
Hispanics in the United States House of Representatives, many state
legislatures have consciously sought to create so-called
“majority–minority” congressional districts.
This involves carving out districts in
which African Americans or Hispanics constitute more than 50 per cent
of the voting age population. The expectation is that such districts will
elect a minority member of the House, which in turn will lead to a
Congress that is more sensitive and responsive to the needs and interests
of America's two largest ethnic minorities. Indeed, this expectation has
become an article of faith for the mainstream civil rights movement and
its white sympathizers.
However, like other forms of affirmative action, majority–minority
districting sits rather uncomfortably alongside the Constitutional principle
of race-neutrality. In a series of recent cases, the United States Supreme
Court has declared that, by subordinating traditional districting principles
to the overriding need to draw boundaries along racial lines, states have
violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.