Research Brief Resegregation in Southern Politics? David A. Bositis, Ph.D. November 2011 Civic Engagement and Governance Institute Research Empowerment Engagement Introduction Following the election of President Barack Obama, many political observers especially conservative ones suggested that the United s is now a post-racial society. Three years later, in the region of the country where most African Americans live, the South, there is strong statistical evidence that politics is resegregating, with African Americans once again excluded from power and representation. Black voters and elected officials have less influence now than at any time since the civil rights era. And since conservative whites control all the power in the region, they are enacting legislation both neglectful of the needs of African Americans and other communities of color (in health care, in education, in criminal justice policy) as well as outright hostile to them, as in the assault on voting rights through photo identification laws and other means. The racially polarized voting that defines much of southern politics at this time, is in certain ways recreating the segregated system of the Old South, albeit a de facto system with minimal violence rather than the de jure system of before. If the political parties in the South are now a substitute for racial labels, then black aspirations there will continue to be limited. All this is reminiscent of the white primaries and poll taxes of days gone by. In most southern states, the 46 year transition from a multiracial Democratic political dominance to a white conservative Republican political dominance is almost complete. At the heart of this transition is racially polarized voting. Black state legislators, generally elected in black majority districts and long used to being in a majority coalition, are now almost entirely isolated in the minority. Republicans likewise dominate the statewide political offices in these states. Virtually all black elected officials in the region are outsiders looking in. This was not always the case. The period between 1976 and 1992 was characterized by both racially polarized elections and those in which there was a fair degree of black-white agreement. In the 1976 election, Jimmy Carter carried all the southern states save Virginia and the voting pattern in the South did not show much racial polarization. Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992 and carried four southern states, including two in the Deep South. However unlike Carter in 1976, Clinton s victories in Georgia and Louisiana were largely due to strong black support, but also some meaningful white support. During this period there were many U.S. Senators and Governors in the South who were elected by genuinely multiracial coalitions of voters. The current status quo in southern politics began to take shape in the wave election of 1994, when at the federal level and in most statewide constitutional office elections white and black voters no longer voted alike and a predominantly white and conservative Republican party became ascendant in the South. However, despite these changes, a multiracial coalition of white and black Democratic state legislators managed to continue to work together, and African Americans were able to maintain a meaningful role in southern state politics.
Southern Legislatures It is important to remember that a majority of black state representatives and senators in the U.S. are in the southern state legislatures, and that this is a reflection of the fact the majority of the African American population in the country lives in the South. Also, of the 318 black state legislators in the South, only three are Republicans, none of whom represents a majority black constituency. The number and status of black state senators and representatives for all 50 states can be found in Appendices A and B. From Post-Reconstruction to the 1990s, the Republicans never controlled any southern state legislative body except the Tennessee, which they briefly controlled following the 1968 election. However, throughout the 1980s the Republicans in several southern states began narrowing that gap, and the 1992 elections were important to achieving their goals, as they were the first after the 1990 redistricting, when black majority districts had to be created due to the 1982 revisions to the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Supreme Court s ruling in Thornburg v. Gingles. When southern Democrats in the Old South first engaged in diluting black votes (i.e. splitting them among multiple districts), their aim was to diminish black influence. However, as southern whites began voting more Republican, the Democrats found themselves having to rely on black votes to remain in office, and growing numbers of them accepted the goals of the civil rights movement and became national Democrats. Accordingly, the purpose of black vote dilution evolved from thwarting black political aspirations to protecting white Democrats and Democratic majorities. On the other side, the Republicans actually encouraged the creation of black districts because they believed the bleaching process that occurred in districts surrounding black majority districts would open up opportunities for them. They supported black districts not to increase black influence but to win legislative majorities for themselves. The Republicans first victories came with their landslide in 1994, when they gained majorities in Florida state senate and the North and South Carolina lower houses [Table 1]. However, even following those victories, most black state legislators in the South continued to serve in the majority; prior to the 1994 elections, 99.5 percent of black state legislators there served in the majority and after 1994, and 91.0 percent served in the majority. While the Democrats eventually regained control in North Carolina in 1996, the Republicans gained control of the Florida house and for the first time controlled a southern state legislature. In 1999, the GOP won control of the Virginia legislature, and between 2000 and 2002, they gained controlled of the state legislatures in South Carolina and Texas. The Republicans gained control of the Georgia state senate in 2002 and the state house in 2004; Tennessee s state senate went Republican for the first time in 2004. While these changes were significant, up until 2010 as many as half of all southern black state legislators still served in majority coalitions. However, following the 2010 elections and the 2011 elections in Mississippi and Virginia, black state legislators now have minority legislative status everywhere in the South save Arkansas. Prior to the 2010 elections, 50.5 percent of black state legislators in the South served in the majority and 49.5 percent served in the minority. Following the 2011 elections, only 4.8 percent of black state legislators in the South serve in the majority, and 95.2 percent serve in the minority [Table 1]. This is a status unique to the South. A majority of black state legislators serving in legislative bodies outside of the South serve in the majority [Table 2]. In fact, more than 10 times as many black legislators outside the South serve in the majority compared to their southern counterparts, 162 versus 15, or 54.4 percent versus 4.8 percent. legislative parties are now increasingly defined by racial composition. All Republican state legislative caucuses are predominantly white, while an increasing number of southern Democratic state legislative caucuses are majority black [Table 3]. This begs the question, what is the purpose of having a legislative black caucus when the majority of members in your legislative body are black? A majority of Democrats in both chambers in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi are African Americans. African Americans are also at least 50 percent of Democratic members in the Florida senate and South Carolina house, and more than 45 percent in the Florida house, and the North and South Carolina senate. In half of the southern state legislative chambers, black members are a majority or near majority of Democratic members. These proportions are of course not commensurate with the black populations of these states; Florida s population is only 16 percent African American, but close to half the Democratic members of their legislature are black. 2 Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies - Research Brief: Resegregation in Southern Politics?
Some of the southern status quo may be transient especially given the rapidly changing demographics of many southern states. Looking at the 2010 U.S. Census figures for a few key states shows the significance of the changes taking place. Texas is now a majority-minority state, and between 2000 and 2010, the Hispanic population there increased by 42 percent and the African American population by 24 percent. Florida s Hispanic population increased by 57 percent, and its African American population by 28 percent. Georgia s small Hispanic population almost doubled, but more important, its large African American population increased by about 26 percent. Non-Hispanic whites are now a smaller proportion of Georgia s population than is the case in Florida. Some of the present status may be due to transient political factors such as the poor state of the economy in 2010 and 2011. However, looking more closely at the root cause of these changes racially polarized voting, and especially extreme racially polarized voting suggest that in many southern states this resegregation of politics is not transient [Table 3]. Looking at the 2008 Presidential election exit polls, it is clear that the degree of racially polarized voting is much less in the states won by President Obama; 42 percent of whites voted for Obama in Florida, 39 percent in Virginia and 35 percent in North Carolina. However, in Alabama (10 percent), Mississippi (11 percent), and Louisiana (14 percent), the extent of racial polarization was extreme, and suggests that no transient factors are at work. Coda The data on the status of black state legislators and by extension black citizens in the South is disturbing. A resegregation in politics has taken place. The achievement of complete power at the state level by people who support policies and actions that African Americans oppose means that for the near future that legislation and budgeting in the South is unlikely to be aimed at helping African Americans no matter how bad their unemployment levels, how poor their schools and dropout rates, and no matter how bad their health disparities. Those with power have also sought to push further into the future any relief or redress by making more difficult for black voices to be heard at polls. Demographic changes occurring daily are making the South a different place. However, these changes have not manifested themselves in politics yet, and a whole lot of poor people, African Americans, and Hispanics are going to have to wait to see an improvement in their lives. Table 1. Status of Black Legislators, Southern s Pre-and-Post 1994 and 2010 Midterm Elections 1 Pre-and-Post 1994 Midterm Elections Pre-and-Post 2010 Midterm Elections Pre-1994 Midterms Post-1994 Midterms Pre-2010 Midterms Post-2010 Midterms Status within Legislature 158 99.3 43 100.0 201 99.5 174 81.7 61 91.0 234 83.9 117 47.8 47 58.8 164 50.5 11 4.5 4 5.6 15 4.8 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.5 39 18.3 6 9.0 46 16.1 128 52.2 33 41.2 161 49.5 231 95.5 67 94.4 298 95.2 159 43 202 213 67 280 245 80 325 242 71 313 Sources: The information and analysis from 1994 is from Redistricting and Representation: The Creation of - Districts and the Evolving Party System in the South (1995) by David A. Bositis. The information and analysis for 2010 is from the NCLS and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. 1. Includes the Virginia and Mississippi elections of 2011. Note: the Virginia isd split. Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies - Research Brief: Resegregation in Southern Politics? 3
Table 2. Status of Southern and Nonsouthern Black Legislators Pre-and-Post 2010 Midterm Elections 1 Pre-2010 Elections Post-2010 Midterm Elections Nonsouthern s Southern s Nonsouthern s Southern s Status within Legislature 195 86.7 48 64.0 243 81.0 117 47.8 47 58.8 164 50.5 130 57.5 32 44.4 162 54.4 11 4.5 4 5.6 15 4.8 30 13.3 27 36.0 57 19.0 128 52.2 33 41.2 161 49.5 96 42.5 40 55.6 136 45.6 231 95.5 67 94.4 261 95.2 225 75 300 245 80 325 226 72 298 242 76 318 Sources: The information and analysis from 1994 is from Redistricting and Representation: The Creation of - Districts and the Evolving Party System in the South (1995) by David A. Bositis. The information and analysis for 2010 is from the NCLS and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. 1. Includes the 2011 elections in Mississippi and Virginia. Note: The Virginia is split. Table 3. Racial Polarization in Southern Elections and Legislatures Black Population Democratic Legislators Who are Black 2008 Democratic Vote for President 2010 Democratic Vote U.S. Senator Governor White Black White Black White Black Alabama 26.2 58.3 65.0 10 98 - - - - Arkansas 15.4 20 16.4 30 95 31 80 62 90 Florida 16.0 50 46.2 42 96 12 74 41 93 Georgia 30.9 65 66.7 23 98 - - - - Louisiana 32.0 42.1 40.4 14 94 22 86 - - Mississippi 37.0 54.5 63.8 11 98 - - - - North Carolina 21.5 47.4 34.6 35 95 - - - - South Carolina 27.9 47.4 58.3 26 96 9 80 29 94 Tennessee 16.7 23.1 44.1 34 94 - - - - Texas 11.8 16.7 30.6 26 98 - - 29 88 Virginia 19.4 25 40.6 39 92 - - - - 4 Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies - Research Brief: Resegregation in Southern Politics?
Appendix A. Partisan Status of Black Representatives, 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 Black Representatives Black Representatives Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep *AL 105 60 45 26-26 - 40 65 26 - - 26 AK 40 18 22 - - - - 16 24 - - - - AZ 60 25 35 1 - - 1 20 40 - - - - AR 100 72 28 10-10 - 55 45 9-9 - CA 80 49 29 6-6 - 52 28 6-6 - *CO 65 37 27 1-1 1 32 33 2 - - 2 CT 151 114 36 11-11 1 100 51 9-9 - DE 41 24 17 3 1 3 1 26 15 3 1 1 3 FL 120 43 76 18 1 1 18 39 81 18 - - 18 GA 180 74 105 40 2 2 40 63 115 42 1 1 42 HI 51 45 6 - - - - 43 8 - - - - ID 70 18 52 - - - - 13 57 1 - - 1 IL 118 70 48 19-19 - 64 54 20-20 - *IN 100 52 48 7-7 - 40 59 8 - - 8 *IA 100 56 44 6-6 - 40 60 5 - - 5 KS 125 49 76 5 - - 5 33 92 5 - - 5 KY 100 64 35 6-6 - 59 41 7-7 - *LA 105 52 50 20-20 - 47 55 19 - - 19 *ME 151 95 55 - - - - 72 78 - - - - MD 141 104 36 32-32 - 98 43 34-34 - MA 160 144 16 6-6 - 128 32 6-6 - *MI 110 66 43 14 2 14 2 47 63 15 1 1 15 *MN 134 87 47 2-2 - 62 72 2 - - 2 #MS 122 72 50 37-37 - 58 60 37 - - 37 MO 163 73 89 16 - - 16 54 105 14 - - 14 *MT 100 50 50 - - - - 32 68 - - - - NE n/a NV 42 28 14 4-4 - 26 16 5-5 - *NH 400 222 176 4-4 - 104 293 2 - - 2 NJ 80 47 33 11-11 - 47 33 11-11 - NM 70 45 25 1 1 1 1 36 33 1 1 1 1 NY 150 107 43 22-22 - 99 51 21-21 - *NC 120 68 52 20-20 - 52 67 18 - - 18 ND 94 36 58 - - - - 25 69 - - - - *OH 99 53 46 12-12 - 40 59 12 - - 12 OK 101 40 61 3 1 1 3 31 69 3 1 1 3 OR 60 36 24 - - - - 30 30 - - - - *PA 203 103 97 16-16 - 91 112 16 - - 16 RI 75 69 6 3-3 - 65 10 2-2 - SC 124 51 73 28 1 1 28 48 75 28 - - 28 SD 70 24 46 - - - - 19 50 - - - - TN 99 48 50 15 - - 15 34 64 15 - - 15 Continued on page 6 Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies - Research Brief: Resegregation in Southern Politics? 5
Appendix A. Partisan Status of Black Representatives, 2010 and 2011 (Continued) 2010 2011 Black Representatives Black Representatives Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep TX 150 73 77 14 - - 14 49 101 15 2 2 15 UT 75 22 53 - - - - 17 58 - - - - VT 150 95 48 - - - - 94 48 - - - - VA 100 39 59 13 - - 13 32 66 13 - - 13 WA 98 62 36 1-1 - 56 42 1-1 - WV 100 71 29 2-2 - 65 35 3-3 - *WI 99 52 46 6-6 - 39 59 6 - - 6 WY 60 19 41 - - - - 10 50 1 - - 1 5411 3023 2356 461 9 312 158 2442 2934 461 7 141 327 100 55.7 44.3 66.4 33.6 45.4 54.6 98.5 1.5 30.1 69.9 Sources: NCSL, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies; = Indicates even split; * Indicates states where partisan control shifted. # Mississippi shifted control in November 2011 Appendix B. Partisan Status of Black Senators, 2010 and 2011 2010 2011 Black Senators Black Senators Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep *AL 35 20 15 8-8 - 12 22 7 - - 7 AK 20 10 10 1 - = = 10 10 1 - = = AZ 30 12 18 1 - - 1 9 21 1 - - 1 AR 35 27 8 4-4 - 20 15 4-4 - CA 40 25 14 2-2 - 25 15 2-2 - CO 35 21 14 1-1 - 20 15 - - - - CT 36 24 12 3-3 - 22 14 3-3 - DE 21 15 6 1-1 - 14 7 1-1 - FL 40 14 26 7 - - 7 12 28 6 - - 6 GA 56 21 35 12 - - 12 20 36 13 - - 13 HI 25 23 2 - - - - 24 1 - - - - ID 35 7 28 - - - - 7 28 - - - - IL 59 37 22 9-9 - 35 24 10-10 - IN 50 17 33 4 - - 4 13 37 4 - - 4 IA 50 32 18 - - - - 26 24 - - - - KS 40 9 31 2 - - 2 8 32 2 - - 2 KY 38 17 20 1 - - 1 15 22 1 - - 1 *LA 39 23 16 8-8 - 19 20 8 - - 8 *ME 35 20 15 - - - - 14 20 - - - - MD 47 33 14 10-10 - 35 12 9-9 - MA 40 34 6 - - - - 36 4 - - - - MI 38 16 22 5 1 1 5 12 26 5 1 1 5 *MN 67 46 21 - - - - 30 37 - - - - *MS 52 27 25 13-13 - 22 28 12 - - 12 MO 34 11 23 3 - - 3 8 26 3 - - 3 6 Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies - Research Brief: Resegregation in Southern Politics?
Appendix B. Partisan Status of Black Senators, 2010 and 2011 (Continued) 2010 2011 Black Representatives Black Representatives Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep MT 50 23 27 - - - - 22 28 - - - - NE 49 * * 2 2 NV 21 12 8 2 1 2 1 11 10 1-1 - *NH 24 14 10 - - - - 5 19 - - - - NJ 40 23 17 4-4 - 24 16 4-4 - NM 42 27 15 - - - - 27 15 - - - - *NY 62 32 29 10-10 - 30 32 9 - - 9 *NC 50 30 20 9-9 - 19 31 7 - - 7 ND 47 21 26 - - - - 12 35 - - - - OH 33 12 21 5 - - 5 10 23 5 - - 5 OK 48 22 26 2 - - 2 16 32 2 - - 2 OR 30 18 12 1 1 1 1 16 14-1 - 1 PA 50 20 30 2 - - 2 20 30 4 - - 4 RI 38 33 4 1-1 - 29 8 1-1 - SC 46 19 27 9 - - 9 19 27 9 - - 9 SD 35 14 21 - - - - 5 30 - - - - TN 33 14 19 3 - - 3 13 20 3 - - 3 TX 31 12 19 2 - - 2 12 19 2 - - 2 UT 29 8 21 - - - - 7 22 - - - - VT 30 22 7 - - - - 22 8-1 - 1 #VA 40 22 18 5-5 - 20 20 5 - = = WA 49 31 18 1-1 - 27 22 - - - - WV 34 26 8 - - - - 28 6 - - - - *WI 33 18 15 2-2 - 16 17 2 - - 2 WY 30 7 23 - - - - 4 26 - - - - 1971 1020 893 153 3 95 60 882 1034 146 3 36 102 100 51.8 48.2 61.3 38.7 46 54 98 2 25.2 74.8 Sources: NCSL, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies; = Indicates even split; * Indicates states where partisan control shifted. # Following the 2011 elections, the Virginia is split. Opinions expressed in Joint Center publications are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the officers representing the Board of Governors of the Joint Center or the organizations supporting the Joint Center and its research and policy analysis. 2011 by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies All rights reserved. Printed in the United s Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies - Research Brief: Resegregation in Southern Politics? 7
About the Author Dr. David A. Bositis (BA, Northwestern, MA, PhD, Southern Illinois University), who has been at the Joint Center since 1990, is the author, co-author or editor of six books, includingvoting Rights and Representation; in addition, he has authored eleven monographs, and numerous scholarly articles, analyses, and reports, most recently, Opinion of African Americans on Climate Change and the 2010 Midterm Elections: The View from Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, and South Carolina ; Blacks and the 2008 Elections: A Preliminary Analysis ; National Survey of African Americans on Climate Change and Conservation ; 2008 National Survey of African American Families Views on Education,; the 2008 National Opinion Poll: Politics; Black Political Power in the New Century ; in The Black Metropolis in the Twenty-First Century: Race, Power, and the Politics of Place, edited by Robert D. Bullard; and The Impact of the Core Voting Rights Act on Voting and Officeholding in The Voting Rights Act (CQ Press), edited by Richard Valelly. Dr. Bositis has written many OP-Ed pieces for the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and other leading newspapers. Dr. Bositis has taught political science and sociology at the George Washington University and SUNY-Potsdam. A voting rights and redistricting expert, he has published widely in this area, and has appeared as an expert witness in both state and federal court. Dr. Bositis worked with the late Judge A. Leon Higgenbotham, Jr. in defending majority-minority districts following the U.S. Supreme Court s Shaw v. Reno decision. Dr. Bositis research was cited by Justice Stevens in the Bush v. Vera case. Dr. Bositis is also a scholar and theorist of political parties and representation and has written extensively on those topics, including the Congressional Black Caucus. Since 1992, he has written the popular monograph series, Blacks and the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. In 2000, the U.S. Department sent Dr. Bositis to Tanzania, Zanzibar, Zambia, and South Africa to speak on issues of representation. Dr. Bositis traveled to Benin several times in the mid-1990s to provide training and to work with NGOs that were conducting presidential election studies. He is is also a scholar of black politics and voting, and the Joint Center has published his election analyses following each national election since 1992. Since 1997, Dr. Bositis has also been the author of the Joint Center series on black elected officials entitled Black Elected Officials: A Statistical Analysis. About the Joint Center The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies is the nation s leading public policy and research institution focusing on issues of concern to African Americans and other communities of color. Founded in 1970 in wake of the Voting Rights Act s passage, the Joint Center plays a key role in encouraging civic and political participation in the African American community and strengthening the leadership skills of black elected officials. Through its scholarly research, distinctive analyses of issues and convening of forums and networking opportunities, the Joint Center helps guide the policy process toward practical solutions on America s most challenging issues and toward a better future for all Americans. Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies 1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 www.jointcenter.org