Race and
Ethnicity in the
American
Political
Process
Affirmative Action
Despite Progress, Minorities
Still Trail Behind Whites
Percentage
35
2000
1980
30
25
20
15
10
5
Whites
Blacks
Hispanics
Supreme Court Cases
University of California v. Bakke (1978)
►fixed racial quotas are illegal and race-based
admissions becomes widespread
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
►awarding minority applicants bonus points
without individual consideration for background
and records is unconstitutional
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
►racial consideration to achieve diversity in the
student body satisfies constitutional standards
Should colleges use race-based admissions policies
to remedy discrimination against minorities?
PRO:
“Universities should use race-based admissions as a
way of countering both past and ongoing ways in which
the admission process continues to engage in practices
that perpetuate racism or are unconsciously racist.”
– Charles Lawrence, professor at Georgetown
University Law Center in Washington
CON:
“The Supreme Court has been pretty clear that you
can’t use the justification of past societal discrimination
as a ground for a race-based admissions policy at an
institution that did not itself discriminate.”
– Steven Balch, president of the National
Association of Scholars in Princeton, NJ.
Should colleges use race-based admissions policies
to promote diversity in their student populations?
PRO:
“Without the bonus for minority applicants, the number of
African American and Hispanic students ‘would drop
dramatically’ from the current 13 percent of
undergraduates to ‘somewhere around 5 percent.’”
– Elizabeth Barry, associate vice president
CON:
“It’s certainly not inevitable that the number of students
from racial and ethnic minorities will decline” under a
color-blind system. In any event, diversity is “not a
sufficiently powerful goal to discriminate and treat
people differently on the basis of race.”
– Michael Rosman, Center for Individual Rights
Should colleges adopt other policies to try to
increase minority enrollment?
Example:
In 1997, Texas & Florida, in 1999, adopted the top 10
and top 20 percent plans, respectively, which promised
a spot in the state universities to anyone who
graduates in the highest percentile of any high school
in the state.
Opposition:
“It’s silly to suggest that all high schools are equal in terms
of the quality of their student body. And therefore it makes
no sense to have an across-the-board rule that the top 10
percent of every high school is going to be admitted.”
– Roger Clegg, general counsel, Center for Equal
Opportunity
Before Affirmative Action

Before Civil Rights dismantled most legal barriers to higher
education for minorities, the legal battle first ended
mandatory racial segregation in higher education twenty
years before Brown v. Board of Education.
1938 - The Supreme Court ruled that Missouri violated a black
law school applicant’s equal protection rights by offering
to pay his tuition to an out-of-state school rather than
admit him to the state’s all-white law school.
1950 - The Supreme Court ordered Texas to admit a black
student to its all-white law school rather than force him
to attend an inferior all-black school.
- Oklahoma was found to have discriminated against a
black student by admitting him to a previously all-white
state university but denying him full use all its facilities.
Before Affirmative Action
 By 1950, whites had substantially greater educational
opportunities than African Americans.
 56% of white Americans ages 25 to 29 had completed
high school compared to 24% for Blacks.
 8% of Whites in that age group had completed college
compared to less than 3% for Blacks.
 Most African American college graduates had
attended either private all-black institutions or racially
segregated state universities.
1954 - The Brown v. Board of Education decision
dismantles racial segregation in elementary and
secondary education. But changes would be slow.
Before Affirmative Action
 By 1970, African Americans had achieved substantial
educational advances.
 More than half of African Americans ages 24 to 29 had
attained high school degrees.
 But the nation’s elite colleges and universities were
slower in seeking and admitting African Americans.
 By 1965, African Americans comprised only 4.8% of
students on the nation’s college campuses
 Fewer than 1% of students at select New England
universities were Black.
1964 - The Civil Rights Act passed, with Title IV authorizing
the Justice Department to initiate racialdesegregation lawsuits against public schools and
colleges and to require the now Department of
Education to give technical assistance to school
systems undergoing desegregation.
The Results of Affirmative Action






By the mid 1960s, colleges and universities deliberately
made efforts to increase the number of minority students
in higher education.
Most instituted programs that included targeted
recruitment of minority applicants and explicit use of race
as a factor in admission policies.
The federal government encouraged schools to look at
minority enrollment figures to judge the success of their
affirmative action policies.
By 1966, Harvard Law School moved to increase the
number of minority students by “admitting black applicants
with test scores far below those of white classmates.”
In 1965, African Americans were 1% of all law students.
In 1975, African Americans were 4.5% of all law students.
The Challenges to Affirmative Action

In 1967, Black students in Ivy League colleges increased
from 2.3% to 6.7% in 1976.
Critics: Political Conservatives charged racial preferences
amounted to “reverse discrimination” against white
students and applicants.
1978 - University of California v. Bakke
1986 - The Supreme Court ruled that government employers
could not lay off senior white workers to make room for
new minority hires. But it upheld affirmative action in
hiring and promotions in two other cases.
1987 - The Supreme Court ruled on sex-discrimination.
1989 - The Court ruled state and local governments could not
use racial preferences except to remedy past discrimination, extending that to federal programs in 1995.
The Affirmative Action Chronology
Before 1960 Limited opportunity for
1995 Univ. of CA ends use of race and
minorities in private and public
colleges and universities
1938 Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada
1950 Sweatt v. Painter
McLaurin v. Oklahoma St.
Regents for Higher Education
1954 Brown v. Board of Education
1960s – 1980s Civil rights era: higher
education desegregation; affirmative
action widely adopted, approved by the
Supreme Court if racial quotas not used
1964 Civil Rights Act
1978 University of California v. Bakke
1980s Sup. Court maintains Bakke
1990s Opposition to race-based
admissions policies
1995 Clinton defends affirmative action
sex in admissions and federal
appeals court bars Texas
racial preference in admissions
1996 Hopwood v. Texas
Nov. 5, 1996 CA votes on Prop 209
1997 Gov. George W. Bush approves
Texas’ top 10% plan
1998 Washington State voters reject
racial preferences in state
colleges
1999 Gov. Jeb Bush bans racial
preferences and approves
Florida’s top 20% plan
2000s Legal challenges to affirmative
action continues
Dec. 4, 2000 Univ. of Washington Law
School ends former admissions
policy after federal court
upholds Proposition 200
The Affirmative Action Chronology
Dec. 13, 2000 federal judge upholds
May 2002 federal appeals court upheld
Univ. of Michigan Law School
University of Michigan underadmissions system; court does
graduate admissions policies
not rule on Michigan’s underMarch 26, 2001 Sup. Court agrees to
graduate admissions challenge
hear new Adarand case appeal
Dec. 2002 Sup. Court agrees to rule on
March 27, 2001 federal judge ruled
Michigan’s undergraduate
University of Michigan Law
admissions challenge
School admission policies
Jan. 23, 2003 Sup. Court upholds Univ.
unconstitutional
of Michigan Law School
June 2001 Sup. Court declines to review
admissions policy but rules
confliction rulings in University
racial preferences in underof Washington & Texas cases
graduate admissions
Aug. 27, 2001 federal appeals court in
unconstitutional. Justice
Atlanta rules University of
O’Connor calls for racial
Georgia admissions system
preferences to end in 25 years.
giving bonuses to all non-white
applicants unconstitutional
Race in America
Race in America
According to a 2003 Pew Research Center for the People and the
Press study, 57% of Americans agreed and 35% disagreed with this
statement:
 “There has been real improvement in the position of
African Americans.”
“Many white Americans and some Blacks believe that race no longer
matters in America, now that public schools have been integrated,
Blacks can vote and race-based job and housing discrimination are
illegal.”
In The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing
American Institutions (1978) William J. Wilson, sociologist at
Harvard University, argues that the significance of race is
waning, and an African-American's class is comparatively
more important in determining his or her life chances.
Economically, Politically, Socially
African Americans are trailing whites:

Median income among black men is 73% compared to
that of white men, 84% for black women compared to
white women.
 Blacks are 60% less likely than whites to receive access
to sophisticated medical treatments.
 Minorities are far more likely to pay higher predatory
mortgage rates than whites.
1,000
Increases in Subprime
800
Latinos
and Prime Lending,
600
400
Blacks
686%
200
0

-6%
882%
1995 - 2001
Whites
415%
8%
65%
A majority of black students score below the basic level
in 5 of 7 subject areas on the NAEP tests, compared to
about 20% of white students.
Economically, Politically, Socially


One in 5 black men spends part of his life in prison –
seven times the rate of whites.
Blacks are 13% of the U.S. population, but are more
than 40% of prisoners on Death Row.
Men in U.S. Jails and Prisons
(as of April 2005)
Percentage of
Inmate Total
Percentage of Race
in U.S. population
Whites
695,800
35.7%
67.4%
Blacks
842,500
43.3%
12.8%
Hispanics
366,800
18.8%
14.1%
Total
1,947,800*
* 42,700 American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific
Islanders are included in the total.
Latinos & Arab Americans
 Both
groups are increasingly experiencing
discrimination.
 Since 2003, Latinos have emerged as the
largest minority group; struggle with levels
of poverty and education similar to Blacks.
 Since the war on Terror, Americans of
middle eastern origin are subject to
widespread harassment.
Resegregation: Is Anyone Taking Notice?



Across the U.S., white students are most isolated,
attending a school made up of 79.7% whites; blacks
attend schools with a majority 54.3% black students;
Latinos attend schools made up of 53.7% Latinos. Asians
are the most integrated.
School-Integration Trend is Reversing, especially in the
South, since 1988. Today U.S. classrooms are almost as
segregated as they were in the late 1960s, and some
experts say the trend is likely to continue.
Education is perhaps the biggest factor affecting black
incomes. Blacks consistently trail whites on standardized
tests, and people who achieve higher test scores usually
can command higher salaries. A 2003 book, No Excuses:
Closing the Racial Gap in Learning, states the education
gap largely explains the income gap.
Elections & Redistricting Disputes
Elections: The Rules of the Game
 Who determines the rules for U.S. elections?
 When are elections held in the U.S.?
Answers:
 Although the Constitution sets certain
conditions and requirements, most electoral
rules remain matters of state laws.
 November and June – the first Tuesday after
the first Monday of the month.
Elections: The Rules of the Game
•Regularly Scheduled Elections
•Fixed, Staggered, and Sometimes Limited
Terms
•Term Limits
•Winner Take All – an election system in
which the candidate with the most votes wins.
•Single-member districts
•Proportional representation
•The Electoral College
Running for Congress
•The House of Representatives
•Racial, Ethnic Politics complicate redistricting
Minorities Gained in Redistricting
YEAR
BLACKS
1991
2001
2003
26
37
37
HISPANICS
11
19
22
•Malapportionment
•Gerrymandering
•Partisan Gerrymandering
•The Senate
Redistricting Commissions & Alternatives
• 37 State Legislators Redraw Most Congressional
Districts
• 13 states give first and final authority for legislative
redistricting to a group other than the legislature
•Alaska
•Arizona
•Connecticut
•Idaho
•Indiana
•Iowa
•Hawaii
•Maine
•Montana
•New Jersey
•New Mexico
•Washington
•California
Joint Legislature/Commission
Special Commission
•Because of low populations seven states avoid redistricting
since there is only one representative for each state.
Senate
Districts
Assembly
Districts
Court Redistricting Decisions Affecting Race
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995)
Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996)
Gerrymandering is
a form of redistricting
in which electoral
districts are
manipulated for an
electoral advantage.
Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996)
Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999)
Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001)
Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S.
(2003)
The term originated after Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry
approved an irregular shaped legislative district in 1812.
Reapportionment & Redistricting Chronology
Before 1960 Reapportionment and
1950s Cities, suburbs gain population, but
Redistricting engender political conflict;
Congress and Supreme Court leave
issues to states.
1787 Constitution requires House of
Representatives to reapportion seats
following census.
1842, 1872, 1901 Congress requires
single-member, contiguous districts
for House seats; subsequent
versions require districts to be nearly
equal in population and “compact.”
House declines to void elections for
violations; law lapses after 1929.
1946 Supreme Court declines to nullify
Illinois malaportioned Congressional
districts, main opinion says court
should stay out of “political thicket” of
redistricting.
most states fail to redraw districts to
reflect shift.
1960s Supreme Court launches reapportionment revolution; states are forced to
redraw legislative, congressional districts,
shifting power to cities and suburbs.
1962 Baker v. Carr
1963, 1964 Supreme Court establishes
equal-population requirements – “one
person, one vote” - for congressional
districts and state legislatures.
1970s-1980s Redistricting becomes routine
along with court challenges; partisan
maneuvering protection are dominant
considerations.
1983 Supreme Court limits population
deviations for congressional districts
unless required for legitimate state
interests.
Reapportionment & Redistricting Chronology
1983 Supreme Court limits population
deviations for congressional districts
unless required for legitimate state
interests.
1986 Davis v. Bandemer
1990s Supreme Court limits use of race in
redistricting.
1993 Shaw v. Reno
1995 Miller v. Johnson
1996 Bush v. Vera
2000 - Present With Republican Party
gains, partisan conflicts over
redistricting intensify.
2001 - 2002 Democrats redraw
congressional districts in Georgia to
their advantage; Republicans do the
same in Michigan, Pennsylvania;
lesser partisan shifts are approved in
other states; Democrats challenge
Pennsylvania plan as unconstitutional
partisan gerrymander.
Nov. 2002 Redistricting helps GOP pick
up seats in the U.S. House; GOP also
gains in gubernatorial and state
legislative contests.
May 2003 GOP-controlled Colorado state
legislature adopts new congressional
map to replace court-drawn plan;
Democrats file state, federal
challenges.
Oct. 2003 GOP-controlled TX legislature
approves new congressional map
aimed to give Republicans 20-22 out
of 32 House seats; Democrats
challenge plan in federal court.
Dec. 2003 Colorado high court bars
second in decade redistricting on state
constitutional grounds;
Vieth v. Jubelirer hearings
2004 Sessions v. Perry
Under the electoral college system, a
candidate _____________ of a
state’s electoral votes.
a. either wins all or none
b. gets a percentage
c. gets at least a minimal number
d. wins none
To win the presidency, the candidate
must have a majority vote of the
______.
a. Supreme Court
b. House of Representatives
c. electoral college
d. popular vote
If no presidential candidate secures
a majority of the electoral votes
the ______ decides.
a. Supreme Court
b. House of Representatives
c. Senate
d. Both b and c
U.S. House Incumbents Re-elected, 1946-2002
Millions of Dollars
Rising Campaign Costs in General Elections
Year
Senate elections are likely to be ___
competitive than House elections.
a. more
b. less
c. equally
Keeping a House seat is ___ than
gaining one.
a. harder
b. easier
c. more costly
d. less costly
Congressional candidates secure
most of their campaign funds from
a. the party
b. personal contributions
c. congressional campaign finance monies
d. income tax collections
Running for President
Stage 1: The Nomination
Presidential Primaries
Caucuses and Conventions
Strategies
Stage 2: The Convention
The Party Platform
The Vice Presidential Nominee
The Value of Conventions
Nomination by Petition
Stage 3: The General Election
Presidential Debates
Money in U.S. Elections
•Efforts at Reform
•The Federal Election Campaign Act
•The 2002 Campaign Finance Reforms
•Issue Advocacy Advertising
•Candidates’ Personal Wealth
•Independent Expenditures
•Continuing Problems with Campaign Finance
•Rising Costs of Campaigns
•Declining Competition
•Increasing Dependence of PACs
•Wealthy Donors
Improving Elections
•Reforming Redistricting Processes
•Reforming Presidential Primaries
•Reforming the Nominating Process
•Reforming the Electoral College
•Reforming How We Vote
•Reforming Campaign Finance