[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 159 (Friday, October 13, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1945-E1946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE LOGICAL RESULTS OF GERRYMANDERING

                                 ______


                       HON. BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 13, 1995

  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to add a very brief 
overview to the discussion relating to congressional redistricting. 
First, however, I want to congratulate my fellow Congresswoman, the 
Honorable Cynthia McKinney of Georgia for her recent and valuable 
contributions on this topic. Partly because of her intense interest in 
this vital issue, and based on the work of legal scholars who have 
studied congressional redistricting, I have come to recognize that 
Congress clearly has the authority to compel fair representation by the 
States in the House of Representatives and to provide for uniform 
redistricting standards such as compactness, contiguity and equality of 
population. Unfortunately, Congress has not acted.
  In recent years, there have been bills introduced providing specific 
standards for congressional redistricting. In the 101st Congress, a 
bill was introduced providing for the establishment of State 
redistricting commissions to draft congressional districts that would 
meet three specified standards:
  First, the boundaries of each district could not be drawn for the 
purpose of minimizing the voting strength of any racial, ethnic or 
economic group, or for the purpose of favoring any political party;
  Second, each district would have to be composed of contiguous 
territory, including adjoining insular territory, in a compact form; 
and
  Third, the boundaries of each district would have to coincide with 
the boundaries of local political subdivisions.
  In the 102d Congress a proposed Senate measure would have required 
equality, compactness, contiguity and reasonable adherence to county, 
municipal, and other political subdivision boundaries, in addition, it 
would have prohibited political gerrymandering.
  Another Senate bill introduced in the 103d Congress would have 
required that congressional districts be equal, contiguous, compact, 
reasonably adhering to the boundaries of counties, municipalities and 
other political subdivisions, and without ethnic, racial or political 
gerrymandering. Again, and unfortunately, none of these bills were 
entered into law. Also, of course, the prospects for passing such 
reasonable legislation in this Congress are not favorable.
  Now, to be sure that we all know exactly what we're talking about 
here, let's be clear about this evil called gerrymandering that some in 
previous Congresses have sought to prohibit. It is defined as the 
process of dividing a State into civil or political divisions, but with 
such a geographical arrangement so as to assure a majority for a given 
political party or population in districts where the result would be 
otherwise, if they were divided according to obvious natural lines. As 
Ms. McKinney, has graphically pointed out, the concept has long been 
used to devise Congressional districts that are not compact, that do 
not adhere to the boundaries of other political subdivisions within 
districts and as a means of preventing certain racial or ethnic 
minorities from obtaining representation. It inevitably results in a 
Congress that does not reflect the diversity of our society and, in 
turn, that results in laws that do not adequately protect the interests 
of all peoples in our society. This is occurring despite all of the so-
called protections built into our national Constitution and our 
statutes that supposedly are designed to protect the interests of 
minorities in this country.
  I hate to be the one to point it out Mr. Speaker, but the makeup of 
this Congress does not allow much room or consideration to be given to 
the protection of minority interests of any kind. This is a winner-
take-all political free-for-all. The laws of this Congress are 
primarily being crafted by a great mass of young white males with 
limited living experience and their slightly older white male 
congressional employers who do not really believe in Democracy anyway.
  In my humble opinion, this white male dominated majority, partly 
elected due to the continuing use of gerrymandering all across the 
country, has misread their electoral mandate. The voters in the last 
election may have called for a revolution, but they did not send you 
guys up here to run rough shod over the interests of all groups who may 
disagree with your view of what that revolution is all about. The 
voters really were trying to instruct you to come to Congress and work 
with us to resolve governmental gridlock and solve the Nation's 
problems. They did not send you here to tilt all 

[[Page E 1946]]
decisions toward the radical right, to arbitrarily deny representation 
to minorities in our country or to create greater hardships and havoc 
for significant numbers of our fellow citizens who just do not have the 
raw power to control the lawmaking process here in Congress.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let me end with a bit of friendly advice. Don't 
misinterpret your mandate. Remember that it was obtained with 
gerrymandering congressional districts, which means that your power was 
acquired through the use of wrongful and discriminatory political 
tactics. Also, remember, Mr. Speaker, as you continue to abuse your 
ill-gotten power, that at some point the voters could very well become 
sufficiently outraged and could rise-up and take back that power. And I 
believe that is exactly what is going to happen to a lot of your 
arrogant, power-mad legislative co-conspirators. I also believe that 
you have already missed your chance to run for President because of 
this very same arrogant use and abuse of political power.

                          ____________________