Illegal representation

National Review, June 17, 1996 by Tim W. Ferguson

THE phrase ''the politics of immigration'' usually refers to debate over the merits of having large numbers of new arrivals into the United States. But immigrants also have a direct effect on who gets elected in America. Even without voting, immigrants determine representation.

For example, because the courts seem to believe the Constitution requires that even illegal residents count in apportioning districts, Juanita McDonald was sent to Congress from California's heavily Hispanic 37th District in March having won just 13,868 votes in a special election. (Her predecessor, Walter Tucker, had been convicted of bribery.) The same day, she won the Democratic nomination for a full term -- tantamount to election in the 37th -- with barely 10,000 votes in a nine-person field. By contrast, congressional victors across the U.S. usually amass more than 100,000 votes, and often that many total votes are cast in primaries.

The 37th District comprises the city of Compton, the Watts section of Los Angeles, and neighboring low-income areas. It used to be heavily black, but now is more Hispanic than anything else. Because relatively few of the Hispanics vote -- many are not citizens --black politicians such as Juanita McDonald and Walter Tucker continue to dominate the elections. Absent felony convictions (or effective term limits), they remain in office as long as they like. The ethically challenged Mervyn Dymally represented much of the district until he retired (though he did not succeed in anointing his daughter to replace him -- she was beaten by Tucker in a 1992 primary).

Such a congressional district qualifies as a modern version of the ''rotten borough,'' a term used to describe landlord-dominated districts in Britain before the Victorian-era reforms. Peter Skerry, in his 1993 book Mexican Americans, applied the phrase to the political constructs of present-day California. They permit remnant voters in these hollow jurisdictions to exert, in effect, double the weight of someone choosing a House member in a normal area. And the 37th District is far from the worst such example.

Lucille Roybal-Allard inherited the seat in California's 33rd CD from her father, 30-year Rep. Edward Roybal, in 1992. This March, she was unopposed in the Democratic primary in this 85 per cent Hispanic district, drawing merely 14,445 votes. She will have only nominal opposition in November. In the 1994 general election, only a Peace & Freedom Party candidate opposed her, and only 41,508 total votes were cast. U.S. congressional districts have about 600,000 residents each.

Rep. Xavier Becerra, from the 30th district near downtown Los Angeles, drew only 21,310 votes to win renomination in March. He, too, is safe from any non-Democratic challenger. In November 1994, only about 65,000 total votes were cast in his race.

California has a few other low-turnout districts, including one in the agricultural Central Valley, and almost always, the winner is a Democrat --usually a left-liberal one and disproportionately likely to be a crooked pol (The smart and competent Rep. Becerra is the exception.) The one Republican who arguably benefits from this phenomenon is Robert Dornan, who survives in an Orange County district (50,126 votes for him in the '94 general) because most of his constituents cannot vote (they're Hispanic or Asian).

A few other states have been visited with enough immigration to witness similar skewing of the electoral process. New York has Rep. Nydia Velasquez, whose district is a four-borough collection of Big Apple Hispanics. Her primary isn't until September, but she got 13,208 votes against a fellow Democrat in 1994; in the general election, all of 43,000 people turned out. Rep. Jose Serrano, from the South Bronx, was unopposed in the 1994 primary and won by 58,512 to 2,257 in November. Same with Rep. Major Owens in Brooklyn, whose district has many black immigrants. He won the '94 general overwhelmingly, with fewer than 70,000 total votes cast.

In Texas, Rep. Gene Green, a Democrat representing the largely Hispanic areas along Houston's ship channel, won a contested renomination this March with fewer than 13,500 votes. In November 1994, he had won a second House term with only 44,102 votes --after outspending his GOP opponent by 60 to 1. Henry B. Gonzalez, when he even has opposition, draws a low turnout in his 60 per cent Hispanic San Antonio district. He collected 60,114 votes against his Republican foe in 1994.

In Florida, Republican Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Cuban-American, won a contested 1992 primary with 15,192 votes and has run unopposed since.

Immigrant-studded districts provide fresh clay for molding the racial and ethnic gerrymanders that reached their outrageous extreme after the extension of the Voting Rights Act. (The law's name is ironic, given the non-voter power it helped to bestow.) Now the worst of these creations are being struck down by more conservative courts, but the damage will be felt for years.

Regardless of one's views on the economic and social implications of concentrated immigration, the distortions of America's political process wherever capitated district apportionment is used (state and local institutions may be even more affected than Congress) should be reason for pause. Just as the welfare network is ill suited to a policy of open borders, so, too, is ''one man, one vote'' as interpreted by our courts.