MINORITY REPRESENTATION, THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE POLITICS OF DEMOCRACY

Abstract

This article develops an alternative theoretical approach to the Supreme Court’s controversial electoral redistricting decisions in Shaw v. Reno (1993) and its progeny. Instead of relying on the traditional equal protection interpretation, this paper argues that controversies over electoral redistricting are at base disputes among competing visions of democracy. In the Court’s recent redistricting cases, the majority and the dissent adopted fundamentally different visions of democracy – Individualist Democracy and Democracy as Power. In addition to elaborating these rival understandings of democracy, this article develops the concept of Symbolic Democracy to explain a central paradox in the Court majority’s decision: its simultaneous denial and recognition of the relevance of racial groups in representation.

Citation

Dawood, Y.A. (2003), "MINORITY REPRESENTATION, THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE POLITICS OF DEMOCRACY", Studies in Law, Politics and Society (Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, Vol. 28), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 33-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-4337(02)28002-3