THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, July 7, 1994 TAG: 9407070021
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A10 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 67 lines
Are at-large elections in Virginia doomed? It would appear so, if reports are true that the Clinton Justice Department is likely to demand that Chesapeake, Va., scrap its at-large system of electing City Council members in favor of a ward system. Under the terms of the Voting Rights Act, Justice believes, at-large voting serves to dilute minority representation and deny black voters the opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
Certainly, at-large voting can be used in such a manner, but that is not the same thing as saying that the mere existence of an at-large voting system is prima facie evidence of discrimination. Recent Supreme Court decisions have been reflecting that reasoning. And if the Justice Department does effectively take the position that at-large voting equals racial discrimination, it might be creating more divisiveness and polarization than it solves.
The Justice Department has received no complaint, much less a lawsuit, objecting to Chesapeake's system of electing its council members at large. Mayor William Ward, who is black and a Democrat, is now contending with a newly elected Republican majority on the council. But that doesn't change the fact that he won election to his post by running citywide.
Nevertheless, the Justice Department denied Chesapeake's request to hold its School Board elections under an at-large system. It was while studying this request that Justice first indicated that it detected a ``racially polarized'' voting pattern in City Council elections and began hinting it would invalidate the system. Norfolk, of course, fought a losing court battle to maintain its at-large system, even though blacks had won election to the council under that arrangement.
What is at war here are two principles. One is the fear that voting rules can be manipulated to effectively disenfranchise minority voters. The other is that the founders designed a system to allow localities to decide how best to govern themselves. Federal intervention is strong medicine, and should override the latter principle only if there is compelling evidence the former principle is being violated.
Although it did not explicitly address the issue of at-large voting, the Supreme Court seems to be backing away from any interpretation of federal law that might require proportional representation of blacks and other minorities. It upheld the legality of a one-man county commission in rural Georgia, for instance, where a single (white) officeholder exercises both executive and legislative powers in a county nearly one-quarter black.
The court also held that it is not necessary to create the maximum number of minority districts that population statistics say it is possible to create. Last year, the court overturned the serpentine North Carolina district drawn to ensure the election of a black member of Congress, a district Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said was dangerously close to ``political apartheid.''
If the United States is supposed to be aiming at a color-blind society, it is hard to see how that principle is advanced by carving up the nation into ethnic political preserves. A diverse constituency can also force politicians to pay attention to the concerns of all voters, rather than simply the ones likely to favor them at election time.
Whites have demonstrated an increased willingness to vote for black officeholders. Virginia's former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder is the outstanding example. Blacks were also elected recently to Virginia Beach's City Council and School Board under its form of at-large voting. That kind of progress might be hindered if the Clinton Justice Department decides that members of one race can be represented only by members of that same race. by CNB