COSSA Colloquium on Social and Behavioral Science and Public Policy Changes Regarding Race in America : The Voting Rights Act and Minority communities John A. Garcia Director, Resource Center for Minority Data COSSA Meeting November 5, 2013
Today s Presentation The Voting Rights Act and Shelby County decision Comparison of Voting Rights Issues and Jurisdictions Voter Suppression Tactics and Examples Gerrymandering Issues and VRA Post Shelby Electoral Political Life and Voting Rights
Voting Rights Acts Shelby County vs. Holder and Section 2: Section 2 allows challenges to discriminatory voting practices, procedures, vote dilution, diminishing minority electoral impact Shelby decision invalidated section 4(b) of VRA. Covered jurisdictions had to obtain federal pre clearance before any proposed change goes into effect. Examples redistricting, registration and voting procedures, precinct locations, election dates/ times, etc. NOW, 9 states and jurisdictions within 6 states, previously subject to pre clearance, are no longer subject to DOJ pre clearance. Court determines that 2006 VRA extension enabling reauthorization of pre clearance without modifying coverage formula was unconstitutional. PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL SOVEREIGNITY AMONG STATES W/O JUSTIFICATION. 3
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. (2013), landmark [1][2] United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting. [3][4] On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5 to 4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. [3][4] The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula. [5]
Disparate treatment of the states "based on 40 year old facts with no logical relationship to the present day" and unresponsive to current needs. The Court expressed that Congress cannot subject a state to preclearance based simply on past discrimination. Coverage formula last modified in 1975, and country "has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions Roberts wrote was that the Act was immensely successful "at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process and noted that the USA has made great progress thanks to the Act.
Roberts added: If Congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have enacted the present coverage formula. [ The Court did not subject Section 4(b) to the "congruence and proportionality" standard of review or address whether that standard is the appropriate measure to use when determining the constitutionality of legislation passed pursuant to Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment. The Court raised concerns about federalism the Section 5 preclearance requirement, but it did not reach the issue of whether Section 5 remains constitutional. However, because the Section 5 preclearance requirement applies only to jurisdictions covered by the Section 4(b) coverage formula, the decision rendered Section 5 inoperable unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.
Covered Jurisdictions of the Voting Rights Act
Crayton, K., M. Baretto, L. Fraga, J. Junn, T. Smith, and J. Wong Amicus Brief by Political Science and Law Professors in Support of Respondents, 2013.
Crayton, K., M. Baretto, L. Fraga, J. Junn, T. Smith, and J. Wong Amicus Brief by Political Science and Law Professors in Support of Respondents, 2013.
Crayton, K., M. Baretto, L. Fraga, J. Junn, T. Smith, and J. Wong Amicus Brief by Political Science and Law Professors in Support of Respondents, 2013. 10
Crayton, K., M. Baretto, L. Fraga, J. Junn, T. Smith, and J. Wong Amicus Brief by Political Science and Law Professors in Support of Respondents, 2013.
Crayton, K., M. Baretto, L. Fraga, J. Junn, T. Smith, and J. Wong Amicus Brief by Political Science and Law Professors in Support of Respondents, 2013.
Crayton, K., M. Baretto, L. Fraga, J. Junn, T. Smith, and J. Wong Amicus Brief by Political Science and Law Professors in Support of Respondents, 2013.
Crayton, K., M. Baretto, L. Fraga, J. Junn, T. Smith, and J. Wong Amicus Brief by Political Science and Law Professors in Support of Respondents, 2013.
Voter Suppression Tactics Changing polling locations. Changing political hours or eliminating early voting days. Reducing the number of polling places. At large elections. Packing majority minority districts. Dividing minority districts. Voter ID laws Onerous candidate qualifications Changing multi lingual voter assistance. Changing election dates Creating new elections Cancelling elections
Context of Photo ID Laws The proposed intent of more stringent Photo ID Laws is to prevent voter fraud by requiring voters to show valid state issued Photo IDs at the ballot box. Seems straight forward, as protection of integrity of voting process is a great goal, and don t most people have a driver s license or other ID already However, it is important to analyze if these assumptions are accurate: Data from DOJ and work of Professor Lori Minnite show that inperson voter fraud is very rare: The Disproportionate Impact of Photo ID Laws on the Electorate Gabriel Sanchez University of New Mexico
Disproportionate Impact on Electorate? Use of survey research to explore the potential for Voter ID laws to have a more pronounced impact on specific segments of the electorate: Minority voters Foreign Born Low SES groups Suggest that surveys are the solid approach to explore disparities, as best way to learn if people have required ID is to ask them. Follows tradition of political science theory that has focused on voting requirements and turnout. The Disproportionate Impact of Photo ID Laws on the Electorate Gabriel Sanchez University of New Mexico
The Case of Indiana Research in Indiana by G. Sanchez for the Brennan Center which was included in Amicus Briefs for the Crawford vs. Indiana case. Despite demonstrating evidence that minority voters are less likely to have ID, we ruling allowed Voter ID law.. Court contended that if ID was made available at low cost or free, there was no excessive burden. The bar for Photo ID laws was lowered from preventing fraud to increasing perception that fraud was being lowered. The Disproportionate Impact of Photo ID Laws on the Electorate Gabriel Sanchez University of New Mexico
Indiana Findings While majority of all eligible voters in Indiana reported having a driver s license, there was a dramatic racial disparity: 84% among White eligible voters 73.4% among Black eligible voters Disparity increases when we look at more stringent requirements of Indiana law: 83% among White eligible voters have up to date ID with matching full name 71% among Black eligible voters have up to date ID with matching full name The Disproportionate Impact of Photo ID Laws on the Electorate Gabriel Sanchez University of New Mexico
Role of Generational Status Critical Critical to understand impact on immigrants given the connections made with immigration policy. The Disproportionate Impact of Photo ID Laws on the Electorate Gabriel Sanchez University of New Mexico
What s Going on In Other States? White Access to Valid ID by African American Access to Valid ID by Stringency 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 97% Have Up to Date ID Stringency 92% 90% 95% Certain Not Expired 91% Name Match 90% Address Match 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% Have Up to Date ID 88% Certain Not Expired 84% Name Match 80% Address Match 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 Latino Access to Valid ID by Stringency 94% 90% 87% 84% Have Up to Date ID Certain Not Expired Name Match Address Match The Disproportionate Impact of Photo ID Laws on the Electorate Gabriel Sanchez University of New Mexico
Voter ID Conclusions Elections Matter Racial and ethnic gap in access to Photo ID exits. Are major differences in possession of valid forms of ID due to age, income, and educational attainment. The partisan implications are significant, as the segment of the population most likely to have costs associated with voting increase are primarily Democrats: Important to note that state s pushing these laws are GOP lead following major legislative and Governor take over in 2010. Close elections can therefore be impacted by influenced of Photo ID changes across nation. The Disproportionate Impact of Photo ID Laws on the Electorate Gabriel Sanchez University of New Mexico
New Millennium Redistricting and Minorities
Legislative Redistricting: Racial, Cracking, Packing, Stacking and/or Stove piping?
The Texas Case Redistricting 2012 Texas grew by 4.3 million (2000 2010) Growth due to 2/3 s Hispanics, 11% African Amer. Gained 4 Congressional districts Minority Districts from 11 to 10 Whites share of pop. From 52% to 45% DFW Hisp/Af. Amer. Increase by 594,00, Whites decline by 156,825; 4/5 districts controlled by whites August, 2012 Rep. maps enacted w/ discriminatory purpose Use of stacking, cracking, packing, stovepiping techniques
Challenges of Post Shelby County Redistricting And Minority communities Partisan advantage and racial components Intended and consequential effects Redistricting plan recourses Déjà vu of new millennium voting rights struggles and underlying issues of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and key provisons
Voting Rights Struggles, Partisanship, Race and Remedies VRA Legislation Structures, Attitudes, Systemic Biases, Authority, Jurisdictions and monitoring/remedies Contemporary political world, minority voting rights and effects of Shelby county decision? Voter suppression actions and surface rationale (i.e. voter integrity, voter fraud, minimal burden to voters) Role of advocacy groups, legal and political recourses Judicial climate and legal bases for insuring minority voting rights