As a side note, I have lived in Virginia since April 1986 and have seen the racism that is still alive here, though I also see more and more people rejecting racism. Though I live in Virginia, home is still Scandia, PA. I am still a Yankee, and I am very ashamed Pennsylvania is listed as one of the most prejudiced states in the nation....
But that didn't seem to matter on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act.
| Published Tue Jun. 25, 2013 3:00 AM PDT | Updated Tue Jun. 25, 2013 8:00 AM PDT
Participants, some carrying American flags, marching in the civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965. Certainly plenty of people outside of the South are racist, and plenty of people in the South are not. But here's the trouble: There's social-science evidence that, 150 years after the Civil War, Southern states do have bigger racism problems than states outside the South. And many of them are the same states that the VRA requires to seek federal approval before changing their voting laws.
The key study on this subject is new. In May, Christopher Elmendorf and Douglas Spencer—law professors at the University of California-Davis and the University of Connecticut, respectively—released a paper arguing that the list of states required to obtain federal approval under the VRA "remarkably" mirrors "the geography of anti-black prejudice" in the United States. "What we have generated," Elmendorf says, "is an answer to the question that the chief justice asked during oral arguments and [Verrilli] was either unable or unwilling to answer." The answer, they argue, is yes.
Elmendorf
and Spencer used data from the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey,
which asked nonblacks to rank their own racial group and blacks
regarding intelligence, trustworthiness, and work ethic. Respondents
ranked their racial group above blacks by an average of 15 points in
each of these categories, perhaps proving the Avenue Q claim that "everyone's a little bit racist." Elmendorf and Spencer, however, only counted a person as "prejudiced" if he thought his racial group was more superior to
blacks than the average person—and only if he thought so in two or more
of the three categories. That is, a respondent could think his race was
a lot better than blacks and still not count as racist under their
methodology.
The results were striking: The researchers' mathematical model suggests that of the seven states in the country with the highest percentage of people who are biased against black people, six are Southern states—Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina—required to seek federal approval for election law changes under the VRA. Arizona and Alaska, the other two states required to get the feds' permission before changing their election laws, ranked much lower in anti-black bias. But as Elmendorf and Spencer note, these states are presumably required to seek that permission because of other bias—anti-Latino in Arizona and anti-Native American in Alaska—which their study did not measure. (Besides the eight states mentioned above, the VRA requires some counties and municipalities in seven other states to seek federal permission to change election rules.)
The researchers crunched the data several different ways to make sure they were getting valid results. But "whichever approach you pick, the Deep South states are close to the top," Elmendorf says.
Elmendorf and Spencer's study came too late: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down the portion of the VRA that governs which states are and are not required to seek the feds' permission to change their election rules. Now Congress will have to come up with new rules to determine which states this section of the VRA should cover. If lawmakers decide to embrace Roberts' implication that states with more racist attitudes should receive special scrutiny, Elmendorf and Spencer's study suggests they could end up with a list of VRA-covered states that looks a lot like today's.
This story has been updated to reflect the Supreme Court's ruling Tuesday morning.
The results were striking: The researchers' mathematical model suggests that of the seven states in the country with the highest percentage of people who are biased against black people, six are Southern states—Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina—required to seek federal approval for election law changes under the VRA. Arizona and Alaska, the other two states required to get the feds' permission before changing their election laws, ranked much lower in anti-black bias. But as Elmendorf and Spencer note, these states are presumably required to seek that permission because of other bias—anti-Latino in Arizona and anti-Native American in Alaska—which their study did not measure. (Besides the eight states mentioned above, the VRA requires some counties and municipalities in seven other states to seek federal permission to change election rules.)
The researchers crunched the data several different ways to make sure they were getting valid results. But "whichever approach you pick, the Deep South states are close to the top," Elmendorf says.
Elmendorf and Spencer's study came too late: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down the portion of the VRA that governs which states are and are not required to seek the feds' permission to change their election rules. Now Congress will have to come up with new rules to determine which states this section of the VRA should cover. If lawmakers decide to embrace Roberts' implication that states with more racist attitudes should receive special scrutiny, Elmendorf and Spencer's study suggests they could end up with a list of VRA-covered states that looks a lot like today's.
This story has been updated to reflect the Supreme Court's ruling Tuesday morning.
Nick Baumann
Nick Baumann covers national politics and civil liberties issues for Mother Jones' DC Bureau. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter and Facebook. Email tips and insights to nbaumann [at] motherjones [dot] com.If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/south-more-racist-north?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NickBaumann+%28MoJo+Author+Feeds%3A+Nick+Baumann+|+Mother+Jones%29The Formula Behind the Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court ruled that a formula used to
define which areas fell under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was
unconstitutional. Section 5 required some places, mostly in the South,
to obtain federal permission before changing voting laws.
Related Article »
Places covered by the law
Covered since 1965
Section 5 was first applied to places that had voter registration or
turnout rates below 50 percent in 1964 and also “devices” to discourage
voting, like literacy tests.
Added in 1970 or 1975
On renewal, the law used data from 1968 and 1972 and defined a “device”
to include English-only ballots in places where at least 5 percent of
voting-age citizens spoke a single language other than English.
Bailed out
Places that had been free of any voting discrimination for 10 years could be released from coverage by a court.
What if the Formula Were Different?
Without the formula, Section 5 is largely without significance — unless
Congress chooses to pass a new bill for determining which states would
be covered. It's unlikely Congress could agree on a new formula, but
here are some of the variables that have been discussed by lawmakers,
judges and legal scholars.
States and counties with estimated citizen turnout below 50 percent in 2012
Places with low turnout now
When Congress reauthorized the law in 2006, one amendment proposed to use data from more recent elections. It failed by a wide margin.
While the places with low turnout now are very different from those with low turnout in the 1960s and 1970s, a trial court ruling in the case considered by the Supreme Court, Shelby County v. Holder, suggested the more recent data was irrelevant.
The years used as triggers, Judge John D. Bates ruled, “were never selected because of something special that occurred in those years; instead, they were chosen as mere proxies for identifying those jurisdictions with established histories of discriminating against racial and language minority voters.”
While the places with low turnout now are very different from those with low turnout in the 1960s and 1970s, a trial court ruling in the case considered by the Supreme Court, Shelby County v. Holder, suggested the more recent data was irrelevant.
The years used as triggers, Judge John D. Bates ruled, “were never selected because of something special that occurred in those years; instead, they were chosen as mere proxies for identifying those jurisdictions with established histories of discriminating against racial and language minority voters.”
White-black gap of at least 5 percentage points in 2008, 2010 and 2012 (citizens only)
States with consistently large registration gaps
During oral arguments,
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted that Massachusetts, a state
that is not covered, had the greatest disparity in registration between
whites and blacks, referring to data from 2004.
While that data comes with a high margin of error, five states — none covered — had registration gaps of at least five percentage points in all of the last three elections.
Some members of the court dismiss these sorts of statistics. According to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “Congress said up front: We know that the registration is fine. That is no longer the problem. But the discrimination continues in other forms.”
While that data comes with a high margin of error, five states — none covered — had registration gaps of at least five percentage points in all of the last three elections.
Some members of the court dismiss these sorts of statistics. According to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “Congress said up front: We know that the registration is fine. That is no longer the problem. But the discrimination continues in other forms.”
At least 1.1 cases between 1982 and 2005, per million people
Lost the most voting discrimination lawsuits
Lawsuits brought
under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which applies to the entire
nation, offer one way to compare discrimination across the country.
A study of cases that were published on two legal databases, Westlaw or Lexis, between 1982 and 2005 found that jurisdictions covered by Section 5 lost more such cases than the rest of the country, even though being covered might seem to deter discrimination.
Judge Stephen F. Williams, who dissented from the federal appeals court decision reviewed by the Supreme Court, considered this data in his opinion. Based on it, he found that “a more narrowly tailored coverage formula — capturing only Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, and possibly the covered portions of South Dakota and North Carolina — might be defensible.” But, he continued, “beyond these, the covered jurisdictions appear indistinguishable from their uncovered peers.”
A study of cases that were published on two legal databases, Westlaw or Lexis, between 1982 and 2005 found that jurisdictions covered by Section 5 lost more such cases than the rest of the country, even though being covered might seem to deter discrimination.
Judge Stephen F. Williams, who dissented from the federal appeals court decision reviewed by the Supreme Court, considered this data in his opinion. Based on it, he found that “a more narrowly tailored coverage formula — capturing only Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, and possibly the covered portions of South Dakota and North Carolina — might be defensible.” But, he continued, “beyond these, the covered jurisdictions appear indistinguishable from their uncovered peers.”
At least 2.0 cases between 1982 and 2005, per million people
Lost or settled the most voting discrimination suits
Some voting discrimination suits, including those with a court-approved settlement, are resolved without a published opinion.
Judge David S. Tatel, writing for the majority in the appeals court's decision, found that “the difference between covered and non-covered jurisdictions becomes even more pronounced,” when including cases settled in favor of minority voters.
Critics of this metric, as well as one that includes only published cases, argue that adjusting for population is unfair to small states and that patterns have changed since the data was assembled.
Judge David S. Tatel, writing for the majority in the appeals court's decision, found that “the difference between covered and non-covered jurisdictions becomes even more pronounced,” when including cases settled in favor of minority voters.
Critics of this metric, as well as one that includes only published cases, argue that adjusting for population is unfair to small states and that patterns have changed since the data was assembled.
At least 75% of non-blacks more prejudiced than the U.S. average
The most ‘prejudiced’ states
Law professors at the University of
California, Davis, and the University of Connecticut have created an
estimate of prejudice using survey data from 2008.
The National Annenberg Election Survey asked people to rank the intelligence, trustworthiness and work effort of different groups of people, on a scale from 0 to 100. Christopher S. Elmendorf and Douglas M. Spencer estimated prejudice based on how people rate their own ethnic group, compared with how they rate blacks.
“It may be argued that Virginia and perhaps South Carolina should not be covered, but the rest of the covered states in the Deep South top the list of the most prejudiced states by anti-black stereotyping,” the professors found.
The National Annenberg Election Survey asked people to rank the intelligence, trustworthiness and work effort of different groups of people, on a scale from 0 to 100. Christopher S. Elmendorf and Douglas M. Spencer estimated prejudice based on how people rate their own ethnic group, compared with how they rate blacks.
“It may be argued that Virginia and perhaps South Carolina should not be covered, but the rest of the covered states in the Deep South top the list of the most prejudiced states by anti-black stereotyping,” the professors found.
No comments:
Post a Comment