Considering the racial makeup of his House district, and the support he already had from the AA community, at least in this case I don't think anyone has any real question whether Rep. Shields could rep SD-22.

Anna is an excellent columnist, but on this one, she makes a major mistake.

By Anna's logical absurdity, you could never have elected a Virginian to the presidency because he or she failed to represent the rest of the 12 states. In present day, no male can be president because we are majority female.

There is a tremendous difference between the kind of representativeness one expects out of a UNITARY executive and a PLURAL legislature.

The founding documents never presumed that the executive would "reflect" the diverse viewpoints of the population, but they argued long and hard about how representative the legislature should be.

If you have a legislature that fails to reflect the diverse viewpoints of a citizenry, then arguably the election system is flawed. This is what the country decided in the 1960s when we passed the voting rights act, and this is what the Supreme Court decided when it held minority-majority districts constitutional.

The issue comes down to whether "race" is reflective of "interests." If people want to argue that race (or gender) does not make a difference, then they are ignoring history.

There is a measurable increase in the attention that state legislatures have given to issues that are of greater concern to women, such as paid leave. I can point you to the citations if you want.

On race, perhaps the best illustration is the famous confrontation between Jesse Helms and Carole Mosely Braun in the US Senate. Soon after Braun's election, Helms proposed--as he had done every session he was in the Senate--a bill renewing a patent to the insignia of the Daughters of the American Confederacy.

It was not until Braun stood up and objected that this bill failed to pass. Previously, it had simply been a routine measure. After this first term Senator--the first African American in the U.S. Senate in more than two decades--spoke in opposition, the bill failed 25-75.

Typo above, sorry:

There is a measurable increase in the attention that state legislatures have given to issues that are of greater concern to women, such as paid leave. I can point you to the citations if you want.

should have read "such as paid leave, as the proportion of women legislators has increased."

I am more concerned about gender than race.

Yes, it is so superficial to worry about the color of someone's skin when you should be concentrating on what's between their legs.

"Carry the logic that a white guy can't best represent black constituents out far enough, and you wind up in a world where a black man can't be president of the mostly white United States."

Anna Griffin's straw-man argument fails to consider that - in a white-dominant culture - black people have far more experience with white culture than white people have with black culture, as a matter of simple demographics. So, a black candidate is very arguably better prepared to represent white citizens than a white candidate is prepared to represent black citizens.

Of course, any intelligent person can research, listen, and work to fairly represent others' views, regardless of the race and culture of all involved. But that hardly means race is irrelevant to fair representation, as Anna Griffin would have it.

Of course, there's a big difference between talking theoretically - and talking about the three candidates we have in SD-22 right now.

Are African-Americans better able to reflect the African-American experience? Of course. It'd be silly to argue otherwise.

Can a particular Caucasian do a better job representing a particular group of African-Americans than a particular African-American? Of course. It'd be silly to argue otherwise.

If Chip Shields was up against, say, Clarence Thomas for this appointment, I think it'd be obvious that Chip would clearly do a better job representing SD-22.

If Karol Collymore was up against, say, David Duke for this appointment, I think it'd be obvious that Karol would clearly do a better job representing SD-22.

What makes this SD-22 appointment such a tough choice for the decision-makers, is that all three candidates are of high quality.

One more unrelated note, that I'd like y'all to ruminate on. This entire discussion is predicated on the idea that the role of the Senator in SD-22 is to represent the African-American community. The district, of course, does not have a 100% African-American population.

How much of the decision should be made on that single criteria - ability to represent the African-American population - versus all the other things we expect from our state legislators?

Jack Roberts wrote: "Yes, it is so superficial to worry about the color of someone's skin when you should be concentrating on what's between their legs."

Jack Roberts' trivialization of other peoples' lives aside, race, gender, sexual orientation, and socio-economic background are all relevant to fair representation.

It's simple: people speak differently about others' concerns when the "other" is in the same room and has a vote. It's the difference between representation and negotiation.

Jerry wrote: "... racism is alive and well in the democrat party"

Republican troll alert.

Anyone who doesn't believe the Multnomah County Democrats gave due and fair consideration to all properly registered candidates, in the most open and fair process possible, simply doesn't know the Multnomah County Dems. There mere fact that 2 of 3 recommended replacements for Sen. Carter are black women says all that needs be said on this point, to anyone paying attention.

This entire discussion is predicated on the idea that the role of the Senator in SD-22 is to represent the African-American community.

That's dead wrong, Kari, and Paul was making a very different point:

If you have a legislature that fails to reflect the diverse viewpoints of a citizenry, then arguably the election system is flawed.

You can choose to limit your interest to the question of who does or doesn't best represent SD-22, but in doing so you're avoiding the question of what it means that the Democratic Party in Oregon can send a virtually all white delegation to the legislature.

I think race and gender can be among the many factors considered in selecting a candidate. Experience counts. Temperment counts. Positions on a variety of issues count. Among the others might be whether a candidate posted why they wanted the Senate seat on BlueOregon and responded to questions from BlueOregon commenters. Only one has so far. That should, IMHO, count a little bit too.

Gee Bill, maybe it's because of the rules of succession--and the fact that Republicans aren't even 9% of the electorate in SD-22?

"It wasn't that long ago that women who supported male candidates where a woman was running were looked down on by some other women."

I suppose if Spring, 2008 qualifies as not too long ago, sure. :)

RyanLeo, it's a simple matter of average exposure.

Based on the statistics you cite, it's obvious that the average black person is more exposed to white culture than the average white people is exposed to black culture, based purely on the demographics. So, as stated, the average black person is arguably more informed about white culture than vice versa.

Pretty logical, actually, and that's all I've tried to point out here.

Jerry, please check the tuning knobs on your tinfoil beanie, I think you've got a radiation leak.

Race is always an issue. Always. It doesn't matter if the district is homogeneous or heterogeneous, the selection of a candidate always nods explicitly or implicitly at race. Jason Atkinson's selection is no less a function of racial context than Margaret Carter?

What I want to know is why the only time we talk about race is when the district in question is a majority (or plurality) non-white district. Why shouldn't Greg Walden have to run a racial gauntlet? The Oregon State Legislature is very, very white. Why isn't this an overt discussion point in every race?

anyone who was at the nominating convention last week (apparently not Jerry) would have seen that Chip had significant support from African-American PCPs. at the same time, lots of white PCPs (and spectators) supported both Joann & Karol. in short, this has been a process that truly has been issue-oriented. both Chip & Joann were supported by members of the community based on what people felt they had done and could do. the Mult Co Comms may have a tough decision to make, but it's not because they need fear being accused of racism (or incumbentism, per Mapes); it's because they have 3 great candidates to consider. the residents of SD22 are winners no matter who is selected.

Dan P wrote:

You can choose to limit your interest to the question of who does or doesn't best represent SD-22, but in doing so you're avoiding the question of what it means that the Democratic Party in Oregon can send a virtually all white delegation to the legislature.

That's an excellent point. And it's essentially the point I made repeatedly during the discussion about Sonia Sotomayor.

In that case, I argued, that we should not be looking for the "most qualified" candidate (however you'd determine that), but rather the best possible group of nine justices. And any way you slice it, the best possible nine justices can't possibly be made up of people that either white or male.

So, the question of the "best possible legislature" is a good and important one. Surely, the best possible legislature isn't entirely white. Even the best possible Democratic caucus isn't entirely white.

Of course, the issue of district representation is also a factor. The people of SD-22 only get one State Senator, and they ought to want the best possible individual -- even as all Oregonians (including the residents of SD-22) want the best possible 30-member group.

It's a tough problem. I don't even the County Commission. The upside for them - three good choices.

Alworth's point is also very, very, very good. Why do we only talk about this when we're talking about North and Northeast Portland? Why didn't this come up in the appointments in Tigard and Eugene?

It seems that there is an embarrasment of riches when it comes to this selection -- Chip Sheilds, Joann Bowman, and Karol Collymore are all outstanding leaders and each would, I'm sure, work incredibly hard to represent their district.

Now, that said, of course race needs to be a part of this discussion, as should age, experience and potential. The legislature, at this point, is primarly white and primarily over 35...not at all reflective of the citizenry it attempts to represent. A young woman of color would bring an entirely different perspective, and a new point of view to the decision-making table.

The best policies are the kind that include such perspectives. Policies that are crafted with blinders on, blinders that are the simply by-product of a homogenous crowd of people, can never serve the entire state as well as those policies that are crafted through the process of inclusion.

So, to me, the "results" (appropriate, thoughtful policies) that Griffin speaks of are the direct result of the inclusion of those of all races, generations and life experiences. You can't get one without the other....

I want to throw in my 2 cents but there is so much good stuff going on here. I think Jeff Alworth's point is as close to what I would say than anyone else's comments. We've appointed a few times this week and no mention of race or age. Most of all, I'm glad the conversation is happening. Democrats shouldn't be behind on the issue of diversity and inclusion.

Kurt, are you saying that someone's life experiences don't have any impact on whether they're qualified?

And that "life experience" would include those experiences that are largely informed by their race or gender?

Kari writes: One more unrelated note, that I'd like y'all to ruminate on. This entire discussion is predicated on the idea that the role of the Senator in SD-22 is to represent the African-American community. The district, of course, does not have a 100% African-American population.

Not for me, at least. I am assuming that all three candidates are over the line insofar as they have the qualifications for office.

Once they are over the line, I see no reason not to consider other things--like what signal does this send about diversity of the Democratic Party, or what does this say about the Party's ability to represent the concerns of minority voters.

One other thing: the reason these issues come up in districts that are majority African American is the continuing evidence of race based voting in this country, strong evidence of which continued in 2008. When you compare Obama's vote totals in Section 5 areas with the vote totals of white Democratic candidates down ballot, Obama trailed by a significant margin (and by far more than he did in non Section 5 states).

A district that is majority white is highly unlikely to elect a representative of color. That is the historical fact. If we decide we value having racial diversity in the legislature, at the present historical moment, one way (not the only way, but one way) to do this is to draw minority/majority districts.

That's the premise of the 1982 revision of the VRA and that is what the SCOTUS has, at least to this point, upheld.

LT, I can also cherry pick majority African American districts that have elected whites and majority white districts that have elected African Americans.

The historical and statistical facts remain. This is why we have Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Or do you think we can get rid of this because of your one example?

You sound suspiciously like "no whites need apply because of a section of the Voting Rights Act".

This is starting to sound like the right wing responses to the Sotomayor nomination, where President Obama's "audacity" in nominating the first Latina to the Court in its entire 200 year history was turned into Bizarro World evidence of "reverse racism."

Kurt C. say "At the end of the day it should be about who is BEST qualified for the job. Race and/or gender should only come into the mix if two or more candidates are equally qualified."

To pose again Jeff A's question: so is your conclusion, then, that the Democratic legislative delegation is now all white simply because in each individual case in each district the "best" qualified potential candidates were white, and that's all there is to say about it?

LT, you do a very nice job twisting my words.

I never posted anything of the sort. What I said, and what I'll repeat, is that your citation of a single district and a single candidate does not contradict the fact of enduring patterns (what you derisively call "statistics") of racial voting in the United States.

I realize that you supported Chip Shields for the position, and I congratulated him on his victory. But it is possible to support Chip and at the same time think that race can be a consideration--in fact, in Kari's live blogging, Chip made this same point!

Dan is on target here--you seem either unaware or are purposely ignoring that fact that the kind or argument you are making is the same one that is being made nationally by opponents to the Voting Rights Act as a means to undermine Section 5.

<hr/>