Six Voices, One Caucus

I watched the New York Times Opinion video with the six Black lawmakers. They are asked, in different ways, why the Congressional Black Caucus still exists and why Black representation still matters once the numbers are no longer required by law.

Watch it here: [VIDEO]

Their answer is lived experience. One of them says that when you are not at the table you are on the menu, and that for many centuries Black people were on the menu. Another says the caucus and Black legislators have been the ones fighting for additional funding for HBCUs, because they know what those schools are worth. A third talks about a constituent whose son needed a Medicaid exemption for autism; the office got it two days before the deadline. Another describes meetings held to keep hospitals open in the district. The claim is that someone who grew up in the neighborhood, went to the churches and the schools, can name the problem and fight for the money in a way an outsider cannot.

On the Supreme Court they are blunt. One says the Court in Louisiana v. Callais struck down and eviscerated the Voting Rights Act. Another says the justices essentially told the states: you can make the districts as racially discriminatory as you want, just do not say you did it because of race. They call the effect colorism more than open racism. Terri Sewell, who grew up in Selma, says it is personal; her district is where the four little girls were bombed and where Bloody Sunday happened, and she is still fighting to restore the 1965 Act. Cleo Fields, whose Louisiana district was at the center of the case, and Jim Clyburn, who has been in Congress thirty-three years, both treat the ruling as a reversal of the progress that took them from six Black members in 1965 to more than sixty.

Asked whether Washington has abandoned the lessons of the civil rights era, they answer without a doubt, definitely, certainly. What they mean is the post-1965 understanding that the right to vote required active federal tools against maps and procedures that produced under-representation. They treat the Callais decision as the latest step away from that consensus: states may now draw districts that reduce Black representation so long as they do not announce race as the motive. In their telling, ignoring the history of Selma and Birmingham while dismantling the statute that came out of it returns the country to a world in which the formal right exists but the practical ability to elect preferred candidates can be engineered away.

What they describe themselves doing is mostly the ordinary work of a member: constituent casework, hospital funding, HBCU money, the things that require knowing the district. They do not claim the caucus is a separate government. They claim it is the place where those specific fights get organized when the broader Congress is not paying attention.

They are also asked about the state of the institution itself. One says Congress has become much more tribal, which makes it harder to get things done. Another describes it as floundering and dysfunctional. They note that the president has made clear he does not want the Republican side working with Democrats, so the minority is left out of the drafting and then handed the finished product. On corruption, the question is put to them directly. One answers that Congress has corrupt elements and that some members enrich themselves. The fix they offer is the usual one: take the dark money out of politics, reform campaign finance, elect people who care about the district more than the next job. They do not pretend the caucus solves the gridlock. They treat it as one of the remaining rooms where the history and the casework still get discussed in the same conversation, while the larger body stays stuck.

A Narrower Room

I cringe at the assertion of racism or colorism in the Supreme Court ruling. The claim treats the outcome of Callais as deliberate exclusion rather than a decision about whether race can be the predominant factor in drawing districts.

A few members of the Congressional Black Caucus already represent non-Black majority districts or near-Black majority districts. Lauren Underwood’s Illinois seat and Janelle Bynum’s Oregon seat are examples. That fact sits beside the argument that Black representation requires majority-Black maps.

If the concern is continuing Black representation in Congress, this may be the moment to talk about uncapping the House. The current number is 435. One thing the members in the video note is communities of interest. Increasing the number of seats would let those communities be drawn without forcing the choice between packing and cracking that the Voting Rights Act cases keep litigating.

My view of the Congressional Black Caucus is that it is a hyperpartisan entity and a long way from the so-called conscience of Congress. Black members and historically Black Republicans who have wanted to join have generally been shunned. The room that remains is narrower than the one they describe.