political incorporation of non-whites slow in cities & counties - why important?political...

• Political incorporation of non-whites slow Political incorporation of non-whites slow in cities & counties - Why important?in cities & counties - Why important?– Virtues of Virtues of ““descriptivedescriptive”” representation representation– Empowerment theoryEmpowerment theory– FairnessFairness

• History of discriminationHistory of discrimination

• Progress in US House & in larger cities Progress in US House & in larger cities

Minority Representation

• 15th Amendment, 1868– The right of citizens of the United States to

vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

– The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation


• Voting Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act, 1965

• Section 2 coverage (permanent, national)Section 2 coverage (permanent, national)

• Section 5 coverage (temporary, extended)Section 5 coverage (temporary, extended)

• Section 203 coverageSection 203 coverage

• Amended and extended Amended and extended – (1975, 1982, 1992; 2006 for 25 more years)(1975, 1982, 1992; 2006 for 25 more years)– Section 5 before USSC nowSection 5 before USSC now


• Section 2 coverage enforces 15th Amend.Section 2 coverage enforces 15th Amend.• Prohibits Prohibits ““minority vote dilutionminority vote dilution””

– Tactics, rules, situations that weaken the voting Tactics, rules, situations that weaken the voting strength of minorities (literacy tests)strength of minorities (literacy tests)

– Prohibits local governments from using Prohibits local governments from using discriminatory election rulesdiscriminatory election rules that give minorities that give minorities unfair chance of electing candidates of their choiceunfair chance of electing candidates of their choice

• What tactics? Which minorities?What tactics? Which minorities?• What proof of discriminationWhat proof of discrimination


• Section 2 allows plaintiff to challenge local at-Section 2 allows plaintiff to challenge local at-large election rules iflarge election rules if

• (1982 amendment):(1982 amendment):– History of discriminationHistory of discrimination– Racially polarized votingRacially polarized voting– At Large At Large dilutes minority vote supportdilutes minority vote support– Exclusion of candidates from Exclusion of candidates from ‘‘slatingslating’’ process process– Discrimination in education, employment, healthDiscrimination in education, employment, health– Overt or subtle racial appeals in campaignsOvert or subtle racial appeals in campaigns– Levels of minority success in election to officeLevels of minority success in election to office– Lack of policy responsivenessLack of policy responsiveness


• Section 5 coverageSection 5 coverage• Requires US Atty General or US DC of DC Requires US Atty General or US DC of DC

to to ““pre-clearpre-clear”” any changes to state and any changes to state and local election rules in local election rules in ““covered jurisdictioncovered jurisdictionss””

• Must consider EFFECT of rules Must consider EFFECT of rules ((retrogressionretrogression))

• Is Is ““purposepurpose”” or or ““intentintent”” to dilute minority to dilute minority vote powervote power


• Section 5 coverageSection 5 coverage• Any change canAny change can’’t deny right to t deny right to votevote on on

basis of race, color, or language groupbasis of race, color, or language group

• USSC gutted this June, 2013USSC gutted this June, 2013Shelby Co. v. HolderShelby Co. v. Holder

formula determining who covered by Sec. 5: formula determining who covered by Sec. 5: ‘too old’‘too old’


Vote Dilution Tactics

First generation: Right to Vote

White primaryWhite primaryEmployment requirementsEmployment requirementsPoll taxesPoll taxesLiteracy testsLiteracy testsOnerous registration rulesOnerous registration rulesDe-annexationDe-annexationSingle-shot voting banSingle-shot voting ban

Second generation: Value of vote

at-large electionsat-large electionsMajority runoffsMajority runoffsChange number of seats Change number of seats Tweak district boundaries Tweak district boundaries Location of pollsLocation of pollsVoting equipment Voting equipment Printed materialPrinted materialNew offices, New offices,

• Section 5 coverageSection 5 coverage• Will change in election rule affect value of vote? Will change in election rule affect value of vote?

The number of minority elected officials?The number of minority elected officials?• Formula / Covered areas:Formula / Covered areas:

– Places that had used Places that had used ‘‘testtest’’ or or ‘‘devicedevice’’ to to restrict registration and voting; places where restrict registration and voting; places where less than 50% registered or voted (1964)less than 50% registered or voted (1964)

– All of AL, AK, AZ, GA,LA, MS, SC, TX, VA (originally)All of AL, AK, AZ, GA,LA, MS, SC, TX, VA (originally)– Parts of CA, FL, MI, NY, NC, SD Parts of CA, FL, MI, NY, NC, SD


• Section 5 coverage, TodaySection 5 coverage, Today• Is it constitutional? Yes, but...Is it constitutional? Yes, but...• Is race no longer a factor in voting? Has the Is race no longer a factor in voting? Has the

south changedsouth changed• Are racially motivated election rules now a thing Are racially motivated election rules now a thing

of the past?of the past?– Scalia: “VRA = perpetuation of racial entitlement”Scalia: “VRA = perpetuation of racial entitlement”

• Congress re-enacted 99-0 it out of fear & ‘political Congress re-enacted 99-0 it out of fear & ‘political correctness’correctness’

• http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2012/12-96

• 46min-53:2046min-53:20


http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2012/12-96

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2012/12-96

• Section 203 coverage (1992, 2006)Section 203 coverage (1992, 2006)• Language minoritiesLanguage minorities

– Link btwn. language and low turnoutLink btwn. language and low turnout– Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Native Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Native

American, EskimoAmerican, Eskimo• 10,000 in jurisdiction, or 5% of citizen VAP10,000 in jurisdiction, or 5% of citizen VAP

– Rules & practices must be evaluated to see if Rules & practices must be evaluated to see if language group discriminated against. language group discriminated against.


• Section 203 Covered jurisdictions Section 203 Covered jurisdictions • Based on VRA formula & census:Based on VRA formula & census:

• US Citizens of single language group over US Citizens of single language group over 10,000 in jurisdiction10,000 in jurisdiction

• Is more than 5% of populationIs more than 5% of population•On reservation, 5% of all residentsOn reservation, 5% of all residents

• Illiteracy rate of groups higher than national Illiteracy rate of groups higher than national averageaverage

• What remedies?What remedies?


• Section 2 cases still commonSection 2 cases still common• City of Yakima (2014)City of Yakima (2014)• US v. Salem Co. NJ (2008)US v. Salem Co. NJ (2008)• US v. School Board of Osceola Co, FL (2008)US v. School Board of Osceola Co, FL (2008)• US v. City of Philadelphia (2007)US v. City of Philadelphia (2007)• US v. City of Long County GA (2006)US v. City of Long County GA (2006)• US v. City of Boston (2006)US v. City of Boston (2006)• US v State of South Dakota (2000)US v State of South Dakota (2000)


• Local “at-large” elections constitutionally suspect if dilute racial/ethnic representation– “sweep effect”- group w/ 40% of votes could

lose all seats– Gingles v. Thornberg, 1986

• “at-large” illegal if:– minority group politically cohesive– minority could be a majority in potential district– majority votes as block against minoritymajority votes as block against minority


• Section 2Section 2• What remedies to minority vote dilution?What remedies to minority vote dilution?

• If caused by at large elections? If caused by at large elections?

• Racially polarized votingRacially polarized voting•Majority of whites vote as a block to deny Majority of whites vote as a block to deny

minority group chance of representationminority group chance of representation• What is RPV? No bright lineWhat is RPV? No bright line• 90 – 10 ?90 – 10 ?• 52 – 49?52 – 49?


Racially Polarized Voting

• Voters of different racial or ethnic groups have different candidate preferences.

• Voting in opposition, rather than in coalition

• Since more white voters, minority candidates will usually lose

• Actual voting patterns determine if voting is racially polarized

• Look at precinct data

• Many places still use at-large electionsMany places still use at-large elections• Many in Washington State Many in Washington State

•Yakima just lost VRA caseYakima just lost VRA case•Cent. & Ea. WA 92% of elections at largeCent. & Ea. WA 92% of elections at large

• In 10 WA counties, Latino pop. = 33%In 10 WA counties, Latino pop. = 33%• Latino local representation = 4%Latino local representation = 4%

RPV & Local Elections

Illustrating RPV (M. Barreto)

0.2

.4.6

.81

% v

otre

won

0 .1 .2 .3 .4% minority in precinct

Example of non-polarized voting


0.2

.4.6

% v

ote

won

Cal

der

on

0 .2 .4 .6% Latino in precinct

pct_cald2 Fitted values

Sorted by % Latino in PrecinctVote Calderon 2002 Primary

See pdfs of WASee pdfs of WASee pdfs of WA State Supreme Court raceSee pdfs of WA State Supreme Court race

Danielson v. Gonzales (Statewide, Danielson 40%, Gonz. 60%)Danielson v. Gonzales (Statewide, Danielson 40%, Gonz. 60%)

Yakima Co (2012 primary):Yakima Co (2012 primary):• Danielson (np)Danielson (np) 64% Gonzales (np)64% Gonzales (np) 36% 36% • McKenna (R)McKenna (R) 50%50% Inslee (D) Inslee (D) 36% 36% • Dunn (R)Dunn (R) 48%48% Ferguson (D) Ferguson (D) 38%38%• Baumgartner (R) Baumgartner (R) 38% Cantwell (D) 38% Cantwell (D) 43%43%


WhiteWhite AfrAmAfrAm LatinoLatinoUS pop 69%US pop 69% 1212 1313State legState leg 89 89 8 8 2 2LocalLocal ??? ??? ??????

Most non-whites elected at local level are from Most non-whites elected at local level are from states covered by the VRA:states covered by the VRA:

66% of Asians, 61% of Blacks, 82 % 66% of Asians, 61% of Blacks, 82 % Latinos Latinos


• But representation does not always But representation does not always require Majority Minority contextrequire Majority Minority context

• % of Local Black elected officials from % of Local Black elected officials from Majority Black countiesMajority Black counties• CountyCounty 30%30%• School BoardSchool Board 18%18%• City TownCity Town 20%20%


• USSC backing away from VRAUSSC backing away from VRA• 2013 Mobile v Holder2013 Mobile v Holder• 2009 challenge to Section 52009 challenge to Section 5• Granting places power to Granting places power to ““bail outbail out””

• Nortwest Austin v HolderNortwest Austin v Holder

• Some cite election of Obama as reason to Some cite election of Obama as reason to weaken VRAweaken VRA• ““Things have change….” Maybe….but not completely Things have change….” Maybe….but not completely


• What if minority group not spatially compact?What if minority group not spatially compact?

• Other remedies:Other remedies:• Cumulative voting as alternativeCumulative voting as alternative

• Number of votes = number of seatsNumber of votes = number of seats



NC 12th CD1992

What iftough todrawMajority-

Minority District?


• Alternatives to Majority Minority Districts

• Cumulative Voting– A remedy in several VRA cases at state and

county levels in• TX, SD, AL, NC


• Cumulative Voting• How it works

– ‘modified at-large’ system– multi-member districts– Voter casts votes equal to number of seats being

selected– voter can ‘plump’ all votes to one candidate, spread

votes around...


• Semi-proportionate– threshold of exclusion = 1/(m + 1)– 2 seats up = 33%– 3 seats up = 25%– 4 seats up = 20%– 5 seats up = 17%– 6 seats up = 15 %


assume 3 seats up, 10,000 voters (30,000 votes)

If ‘at large,’

65% white voters, 35% Latino voters

6500 white voters, 3500 Latino

• if racially polarized votingif racially polarized voting....

Minority Representation • Standard Voting 3 seat example• (3 seats, 10,000 voters. 65% Anglo, 35% Latino)

Ethn. name votes for seat 1:

W A 6,000 electedL F 3,500

W H 500seat 2

W B 4,000 electedL D 3,500W E 2,500

seat 3:W C 6,500 electedL G 3,500

Minority Representation • CV, 3 seat example 10,000 X 3 votes

Ethn. name votes for

W A 7,500 electedW B 6,500 electedW C 5,000 W X 250

W H 0L F 8,000 electedW E 250L G 2,500

political incorporation of non-whites slow in cities & counties - why important?political...

Documents