Today the Boston City Council adopted a redistricting plan proposed by South Boston’s Bill Linehan that dilutes the voting strength of the city’s growing minority communities. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/08/22/vote-districts-for-boston-city-council-changed-despite-fear-minority-voters-will-lose-clout/5L7iOMOYQpe9kYI05D5FHK/story.html?event=event12 As a gay activist, I’m concerned that the LGBT community of the South End and Bay Village remain part of District 2, dominated by the old guard of South Boston. While former District 2 Councilor Jimmy Kelly was an avowed homophobe, Linehan’s idea of representing his LGBT constituents is a drop-by at Pride Week while he continues to march in the exclusionary South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade–gays not welcome. At the St. Patrick’s Day breakfast earlier this year, Linehan insinuated that openly gay Rep. Barney Frank would not be well-received in South Boston should he try to campaign there, for Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.
The crucial 7th vote for the Linehan plan came from supposedly progressive Jamaica Plain Councilor Matt O’Malley, a former Deputy Director of Mass Equality ironically enough. The Chinese Progressive Association is already mulling a lawsuit challenging the Linehan plan, which should draw support from the African American and Hispanic communities. LGBT activists are concerned about the disempowerment of communities of color and considering ways to assist the challenge to a plan passed entirely on the votes of straight white men.
to single out Matt O’Malley for scorn (not Mark). was the former political director of Mass Equality, and has extensive progressive credentials. To imply that he has done something underhanded because he is a white straight man, and so by definition, must be involved in some plot to disenfrancise minorities, is over the top in my opinion. Granted while you are not claiming to be a journalist, I believe he should be given an opportunity to respond before his is vilified.
a) Boston City Council hides the names of the Districts’ Bordering Streets. Maps aren’t labelled with the names of the Districts’ Bordering Streets. All people interested in the information and maps haven’t a convenient accurate map that can be understood easily. b) Online overlays comparing maps, proposed maps, previous maps need to be made available.
Keep in mind too, that LGBT people I’m pretty sure are not protected by provisions of the Voting Rights Act that cover districting. I’m not a big fan of drawing districts on race anyway and advocate the reconsideration of those requirements.
Irrespective of intent. Matt is the most progressive councilor to support the Linehan plan, so it’s fair to regard him as the swing vote. LGBT people lack standing under the Voting Rights Act, but our interests align with communities of color who are protected by federal law. With the South End fractured, it is clear we don’t have meaningful representation–certainly not from Linehan who marches in the exclusionary St. Patrick’s Day parade. He clearly intended to weaken the Chinatown-South End voting bloc to protect his incumbency. This/map should be scrapped and a new project undertaken–one less unfair to Boston’s minority majority.
So he might be unavailable for a while. Please remember Marianne O’Malley in your thoughts and prayers.
if memory serves me. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) So the rationale that minorities have always been packed into two districts and splintered among the rest won’t cut any ice with a federal court. That sounds like a classic Voting Rights Act violation to me.
I spoke to Matt, who is a very friendly guy and a true progressive, but he didn’t really respond to the concerns of the minority coalition. He more or less admitted that the South End, and to a lesser extent Chinatown, drew the short straw in the process. Not surprising since the South End and Chinatown have never had a voice on the City Council.
to the voting rights act that I know of is that in District 4 (currently Charles Yancey’s district), you do not need 200 verified signatures on the nomination papers, you only need like 130 approximately.
As a casual observer, looking at who voted against, it looked to me like a collective of Councilors who rarely vote with Menino anyway and those who may run for the open seat (or possibly against) Menino, next year. Basically, rather than the breakdown being about Race, I would suggest it is more basic than that, it is by who is beholding to Menino and his machine or is afraid of his machine and who may challenge him next year. In other words, Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets. In this case Lola is DA MAYOR.
What? No LGBT district? Call the Dept of Justice! Convene the Supreme Court!
I am very sorry, but your complaint is reprehensible and anti-social, IMHO. You are advocating that municipal redistricting preserve voting blocks based on sexual orientation. The logic of preserving the political power of any interest group goes missing…taken to an extreme, why not push for a majority gay district?
Boston is tribal enough without consideration of gerrymandering to accommodate interest groups. Balkanization of districts is a bad civil outcome. Imagine if this sort of segregation was codified in our zoning regulations. Oh the outcry. But it’s OK to do this for political reasons.
Why should a Beacon Hill resident not have the same concerns about property taxes, garbage, potholes, and crime as residents of the South End or Fields Corner?
You need to explain why you think this way.
I’m troubled by this comment thread. Most institutional racism today is not about intentional or hateful acts targeting communities of color – although these are of course still quite prevalent – it’s about “color-blind” policy, passed with other rationalizations in mind, that “just happen” to have the effect of perpetuating or increasing racial inequalities. However, a slew of comments followed this post rushing to defend those who voted for it based on their intentions – e.g. they are progressives and therefore can’t be racist, or they were probably just voting along pro-Menino/anti-Menino lines, etc.
We will never know the intentions or real motivations of the 7 city councilors who voted for this, and I don’t particularly care what they are. What we DO know is what the impact of the policy will be: the disenfranchisement of residents of color in Boston. When the State Legislature approached redistricting this past year, with the shadow of Supreme Court rulings that struck down Tom Finneran’s 2001 redistricting, they did so with the explicit goal of expanding the number of majority-minority districts: the result was that the number of majority-minority districts in the House grew from 10 to 20, and in the Senate from 2 to 3. They also created a majority-minority Congressional district This is still not proportional to the minority populations in the state, but it is one hell of an accomplishment. The City Council on the other hand has refused to address the racial inequities of the current districts in any way.
I think it’s entirely appropriate to judge the City Councilors who voted yes for this, but it is not about accusing them of being racist, it’s about their vote to perpetuate institutional racism – regardless of their intentions.
Just to reiterate what troubles me about the thread: apparently defending the intentions of the Councilors who voted yes, or dreaming up alternative motivations, struck posters as more important than the actual outcomes of the policy. Let’s talk about the results of this: another 10 years of Boston, which is currently 53% residents of color and growing, with representation from a City Council that is 69% white. I hope that Major Menino vetoes this redistricting proposal, and I wish luck to the groups pursuing a lawsuit under the Civil Rights Act.