THE HYBRID NATURE OF POLITICAL RIGHTS

In recent redistricting and juror exclusion cases, the Supreme Court h as expressed hostility to the idea that government may consider racial or gender group membership in making decisions that determine the com position of representative institutions. Instead, the Court has insist ed that government must think of voters and jurors solely as individua l actors, who cannot be recognized as having similar interests, experi ences, or perspectives as other persons who share their race or sex. W hatever merit there may be in adopting this exclusively individualisti c approach in the area of civil rights and privileges, Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that it is an inadequate basis for understanding the Constitution's equality requirements when political rights are at issue. Instead of focusing exclusively on the individual, our constit utional tradition acknowledges a dual dimension to political rights, c onsisting of both an individualistic, dignitary component and a group- based, instrumental component This tradition developed out of the poli tical and legal struggles to extend the franchise to black men and to women through the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments and underlies ov er 100 years of case law interpreting the nature of political equality for constitutional purposes. Political rights in America have always reflected an uneasy tension between respect for the individual and a c oncern for the ability of groups to influence government. When the mod ern Court ignores the group and instrumental dimensions of political r ights in our history, it avoids rather than resolves the hard question s and grounds constitutional doctrine in this area on an unstable foun dation.