By
Fernando Florez
*Edited and modified by Jesús Manuel Mena Garza for Chicano y Que?
Special to Nuestra Voz
de Tarrant County
Shortly after the end of World War II one of my friend's father
returned home to Fort Worth after his military service. A few days later he and
a friend went to a restaurant downtown. They sat down at a table to order and
soon a waiter came over and told them: "We don't serve
Mexicans." With his great sense of humor, my friend's father
replied to the waiter: "We weren't going to order one" and left the
restaurant. Being discriminated against and disrespected in other ways was not
uncommon for Chicanos in this and other parts of Texas and the Southwest.
But in part because of the military contributions of Chicanos and Tejanos to the United States going as far back as the
American Revolutionary War, which have not ever been fully recognized to this
day, injustices such as this one were catching the public's eye and the winds
of change were already blowing.
I
came to work at General Dynamics here in Fort Worth as an electronics
technician/ technical writer after my Army discharge in 1968. There has been
some change here since that time, but what is still prevalent is the same
attitude that those with the political power in the Rio Grande Valley had when
I was growing up: Maintain the status quo by keeping the same people or those
of their ilk, who opposed sharing political power with Chicanos, in
control. I never thought that was right then nor that it's
right now--no matter how it's spinned, it's simply wrong to keep Chicanos or
any other group from having their voice heard-- and it's the reason I am
involved in redistricting.
Redistricting involves drawing electoral districts' boundaries. Because of
a long history of discrimination, especially in the South, Texas and the
Southwest, and to comply with the Voting Rights Act, boundaries must be drawn
in a manner that will protect the voting rights of minorities. Here in Texas,
there is redistricting of U. S. Congressional districts and of state Senate and
House of Representative districts, by the legislature. (Briefly, in the North
Texas area, the legislature has drawn districts that minimize the chances for Chicanos
to be elected to office, by diluting the impact of their votes, and some lawsuits
are pending.)
There is other information associated with redistricting that
is significant: A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling has gutted part of
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and as a result the Texas Voter I.D.
law that was passed in the last session of the legislature (when there is
no evidence that it was needed) will be implemented. The latter, an
anti-minority voter suppression scheme, is being challenged in court by several
Chicano groups and the U.S. Justice Department.
I
am focusing my discussion on Fort Worth redistricting, which is what I've been
involved in for nearly twenty-five years. I am briefly
reviewing what we've done in regards to both Fort Worth City Council and
Fort Worth Independent School District (FWISD) redistricting the last
couple of years and what it looks like for the future as the battles
continues.
Fort Worth City Council redistricting: Fort Worth adopted an 8-1 single-member
city council-mayor electoral system in 1977. Prior to that, in a
typical election, the top nine votegetters--all of them usually
lived in two of the most affluent areas of the city--were elected. They in turn
selected the mayor. At that time the population of Fort Worth was approximately
half of what it was in the 2010 census count. The Chicano population of
Fort Worth was not very high then, but in the 2010 census the total
population of the city was 742,765, with 34% of it Chicano; the
Anglo-White population was 42, African-American 18% and other 6%. Between the
last two census cycles, the only group that showed a percentage increase
in population was Chicanos.
Because Fort Worth prides itself as being a diverse city, we have been trying
to convince the city council to change its electoral system to be more
inclusive by drawing more than one district in which a Chicano has a chance of
being elected.
Sure, we know that the Chicano population is somewhat scattered, and that it
includes non-citizens in it, but if district lines are drawn properly it
can be done. Two strong majority Chicano functional districts can easily be
created by converting to a 10-1 electoral system and that was the focus of
our redistricting effort early on, right after the 2010 census data came
out. But it was an uphill battle from the start because the majority
of city council members' main focus was to protect their self-interest, their
turf, and the best way to do that was by keeping the same system in place. Any
change to the electoral system would have to be first approved by the city
council itself, or forced on them by collecting enough signatures on a
petition, before it would go to the voters to decide the issue and amend the
city's charter. Our petition drive campaign's rallying cry to force the city
council to call an election was "Let the People Decide," but we
couldn't muster enough public support. Very few people seem to care whether Chicanos
have fair representation--except Chicanos.
After that, we redrew new maps for an 8-1 electoral plan, focusing
on creating a second strong functional majority Chicano district,
in the city's south side (district 9). After some negotiation, some slight
changes were made to the city's map, but not enough. Still left in the district
were five precincts west of 8th Avenue; those precincts are 90% plus
Anglo-White, Republican, (except Mistletoe Heights, Precinct 1076, which is
more liberal and the vote is usually split between Democrats and Republicans
in major elections), much more affluent, with a higher educational level
and household income (at the middle to upper middle class level), and
with higher property values. By contrast those precincts east of 8th
Avenue, such as South Hemphill Heights, Worth Heights, and Rosemont,
are majority Chicano in population; people there have a much
lower educational level and household income and they vote for Democrats
in major elections; the two areas have no "Communities of
Interest." In other words, these two areas have nothing in common and
should not be in the same council district. More affluent people, with more
education and higher income, vote at higher rates, and in Fort Worth as a
bloc for White-Anglo candidates, overwhelming minority candidates from the rest
of the district. The precincts west of 8th Avenue have won every competitive
election in District 9 since Fort Worth went to single-member districts in
1977. This is not conjecture, but based on the research we've done. We fought
hard for our plans (three of them were submitted for consideration), but,
unfortunately, lost that battle. Over our objection, the city adopted their
plan on July 24, 2012 and submitted it to the U.S. Department of Justice for
pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
(In
the city's plan, the total population in City Council District 9 was 91,140,
with 57.72% of it Chicano. The total Chicano population percentage looks good
on paper, but a clearer picture of City Council District 9 emerges after
looking at the map more closely: The total estimated citizen population for the
district using American Community Survey (ACS) data was 69,060; the estimated
citizen population for non-Chicanos was 36,775. The total estimated Citizen
Voting Age Population (CVAP) for the district was 46,540; the estimated non-Chicano
CVAP was 31,360 and the estimated Chicano CVAP was 15,180. From this data, it
can be seen that the Chicano population is young and some of it is
non-citizen. Approximately two thirds of its voting age population is non-Chicano. Throw
in the polarized, bloc voting west of 8th Avenue in the mix and it's no wonder
that every contested election in the district has been won by an Anglo.)
We
objected to the city's plan with the Federal Justice Department, but without
going into too much detail here, we knew our chances of prevailing were
slim. On October 1, 2012, we and the city's attorney were notified that their
plan was pre-cleared.
So
was putting up the fight we did worth it? Without a doubt, absolutely. First,
Section 5 of the VRA is mainly about retrogression--not about a population that
is increasing, such as Chicanos--and the maps we submitted show that if the
city council had adopted one of them we would have created a second Chicano district
in the south side. That leads us to Section 2 of the VRA, which
places much stricter standards for the city to meet, but the burden
of proof is ours. (Again, I couldn't possibly cover all of that in this short
space.) As I write this, let’s just say that a lawsuit against the city is
a strong possibility. Stay tuned.
Fort Worth Independent School District (FWISD) redistricting: With respect to
FWISD redistricting, we have also been fighting a tough and contentious
battle for the same reason as city council redistricting: fair
representation, commensurate to the Chicano population. With an approximately
62% Chicano student population in the district (the African-Americans
student population was 23.28%, and Anglo-Whites nearly 12% out of approximately
82,000 students in the district during the last school year), we sought a third
seat out of nine when the position of school board president elected-at-large
was eliminated last year and an additional single-member district was created. Looking
at the treatment of minority students historically here in Fort
Worth, in other parts of the Texas, in the Deep South and in the Southwest
and with the vast majority of school children in the
district being Chicano, what was so unreasonable about
drawing an additional Chicano majority district? We simply must have a
stronger voice on the school board where policy affecting the future of our
children is made. We are not racists as some of us have been called, but
instead, we tried to right a wrong--having an unequal voice on the school
board. After months of battling, a third Chicano leaning district was
created and a Chicano was appointed to it; but neither District 8 nor
District 9, the two Chicanos leaning districts which were newly redrawn were as
strong as they should have been.
The
establishment fought us hard and helping them was our major daily
newspaper, which unfairly took their side; we were badmouthed for
"seeking more political power," as if that wasn't justified.
With the increased xenophobia being directed against Chicanos everywhere
we are seeing a higher level of polarized voting. That, and the
nitpicking by one of the newspaper's writers and the editorial
board over a period of time, and the money pumped into the race by
the special interests against him, Juan Rangel, the incumbent, lost
the runoff election by 23 votes on June 15, 2013. In my opinion, in
District 8 the threat of having to raise large sums of money to mount viable
campaigns dissuaded two genuine Chicano candidates from staying in
the race for that seat.
The
establishment is fighting us hard to keep Chicanos off the school board. Today,
we have essentially one Chicano on the FWISD Board of Education. But the last
chapter in this saga has not been written yet. Again, stay tuned.
-30-
*What changes did Jesús Garza make? He shortened the article by removing several paragraphs detailing segregation and disenfranchisement of the Chicano and Black community. Garza also replaced the word Hispanic or Spanish with Chicano. There was also a map of Fort Worth that was deleted.
