Minority Representation
• Political incorporation of non-whites slow
in cities & counties - Why important?
– Virtues of “descriptive” representation
– Empowerment theory
– Fairness
• History of discrimination
• 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
Minority Representation
•
•
•
•
•
Voting Rights Act, 1965
Section 2 coverage (permanent, national)
Section 5 coverage (temporary, extended)
Section 203 coverage
Amended and extended
– (1975, 1982, 1992; 2006 for 25 more years)
– Section 5 before USSC now
Minority Representation
• Section 2 coverage enforces 15th Amend.
• Prohibits “minority vote dilution”
– Tactics, rules, situations that weaken the voting
strength of minorities (literacy tests)
– Prohibits local governments from using
discriminatory election rules that give minorities
unfair chance of electing candidates of their choice
• What tactics? Which minorities?
• What proof of discrimination
Minority Representation
• Section 2 allows plaintiff to challenge local
at-large election rules if
• (1982 amendment):
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
History of discrimination
Racially polarized voting
At Large dilutes minority vote support
Exclusion of candidates from ‘slating’ process
Discrimination in education, employment, health
Overt or subtle racial appeals in campaigns
Levels of minority success in election to office
Lack of policy responsiveness
Minority Representation
• Section 5 coverage
• Requires US Atty General or US DC of DC
to “pre-clear” any changes to state and
local election rules in “covered
jurisdictions”
• Must consider EFFECT of rules (retrogression)
• Is “purpose” or “intent” to dilute minority
vote power
Minority Representation
• Section 5 coverage
• Any change can’t deny right to vote on
basis of race, color, or language group
• USSC gutted this June, 2013
Shelby Co. v. Holder
formula determining who covered by Sec. 5:
‘too old’
Vote Dilution Tactics
First generation: Right to
Vote
White primary
Employment requirements
Poll taxes
Literacy tests
Onerous registration rules
De-annexation
Single-shot voting ban
Second generation: Value
of vote
at-large elections
Majority runoffs
Change number of seats
Tweak district boundaries
Location of polls
Voting equipment
Printed material
New offices,
Minority Representation
• Section 5 coverage
• Will change in election rule affect value of vote?
The number of minority elected officials?
• Formula / Covered areas:
– Places that had used ‘test’ or ‘device’ to
restrict registration and voting; places where
less than 50% registered or voted (1964)
– All of AL, AK, AZ, GA,LA, MS, SC, TX, VA (originally)
– Parts of CA, FL, MI, NY, NC, SD
Minority Representation
• Section 5 coverage, Today
• Is it constitutional? Yes, but...
• Is race no longer a factor in voting? Has the
south changed
• Are racially motivated election rules now a thing
of the past?
– Scalia: “VRA = perpetuation of racial entitlement”
• Congress re-enacted 99-0 it out of fear & ‘political
correctness’
• http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2012/1296
• 46min-53:20
Minority Representation
• Section 203 coverage (1992, 2006)
• Language minorities
– Link btwn. language and low turnout
– Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Native
American, Eskimo
• 10,000 in jurisdiction, or 5% of citizen VAP
– Rules & practices must be evaluated to see if
language group discriminated against.
Minority Representation
• Section 203 Covered jurisdictions
• Based on VRA formula & census:
• US Citizens of single language group over
10,000 in jurisdiction
• Is more than 5% of population
• On reservation, 5% of all residents
• Illiteracy rate of groups higher than national
average
• What remedies?
Minority Representation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 2 cases still common
City of Yakima (2014)
US v. Salem Co. NJ (2008)
US v. School Board of Osceola Co, FL (2008)
US v. City of Philadelphia (2007)
US v. City of Long County GA (2006)
US v. City of Boston (2006)
US v State of South Dakota (2000)
Minority Representation
• 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 minority
Minority Representation
• Section 2
• What remedies to minority vote dilution?
• If caused by at large elections?
• Racially polarized voting
• Majority of whites vote as a block to deny
minority group chance of representation
• What is RPV? No bright line
• 90 – 10 ?
• 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
RPV & Local Elections
• Many places still use at-large elections
• Many in Washington State
• Yakima just lost VRA case
• Cent. & Ea. WA 92% of elections at large
• In 10 WA counties, Latino pop. = 33%
• Latino local representation = 4%
Illustrating RPV (M. Barreto)
.6
.4
.2
0
% votre won
.8
1
Example of non-polarized voting
0
.1
.2
% minority in precinct
.3
.4
Illustrating RPV (M. Barreto)
Vote Calderon 2002 Primary
0
.2
.4
.6
Sorted by % Latino in Precinct
0
.2
.4
% Latino in precinct
pct_cald2
Fitted values
.6
Illustrating RPV (M. Barreto)
See pdfs of WA
See pdfs of WA State Supreme Court race
Danielson v. Gonzales (Statewide, Danielson 40%, Gonz. 60%)
Yakima Co (2012 primary):
• Danielson (np)
• McKenna (R)
• Dunn (R)
• Baumgartner (R)
64%
50%
48%
38%
Gonzales (np)
Inslee (D)
Ferguson (D)
Cantwell (D)
36%
36%
38%
43%
Minority Representation
White
US pop
69%
State leg 89
Local
???
AfrAm
12
8
???
Latino
13
2
Most non-whites elected at local level are
from states covered by the VRA:
66% of Asians, 61% of Blacks, 82 %
Latinos
Minority Representation
• But representation does not always
require Majority Minority context
• % of Local Black elected officials from
Majority Black counties
• County
• School Board
• City Town
30%
18%
20%
Minority Representation
• USSC backing away from VRA
• 2013 Mobile v Holder
• 2009 challenge to Section 5
• Granting places power to “bail out”
• Nortwest Austin v Holder
• Some cite election of Obama as reason to
weaken VRA
• “Things have change….” Maybe….but not completely
Minority Representation
• What if minority group not spatially compact?
• Other remedies:
• Cumulative voting as alternative
• Number of votes = number of seats
Minority Representation
NC 12th CD
1992
What if
tough to
draw
MajorityMinority District?
Minority Representation
• Alternatives to Majority Minority Districts
• Cumulative Voting
– A remedy in several VRA cases at state and
county levels in
• TX, SD, AL, NC
Minority Representation
• 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...
Minority Representation
• 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 %
Minority Representation
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 voting....
Minority Representation
• Standard Voting 3 seat example
•
(3 seats, 10,000 voters. 65% Anglo, 35% Latino)
Ethn.
name
votes for
W
L
W
A
F
H
6,000 elected
3,500
500
W
L
W
B
D
E
4,000 elected
3,500
2,500
W
L
C
G
6,500 elected
3,500
seat 1:
seat 2
seat 3:
Minority Representation
• CV, 3 seat example 10,000 X 3 votes
Ethn.
name
votes for
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
A
B
C
X
H
F
E
G
7,500 elected
6,500 elected
5,000
250
0
8,000 elected
250
2,500