The Geography of Racial Stereotyping: Evidence and Implications for VRA Preclearance After Shelby County
The Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) effectively enjoined the preclearance regime of the Voting Rights Act. The Court deemed the coverage formula, which determines the jurisdictions subject to preclearance, insufficiently grounded in current conditions. This Article proposes a new, le...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | California law review 2014-10, Vol.102 (5), p.1123-1180 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1180 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 1123 |
container_title | California law review |
container_volume | 102 |
creator | Elmendorf, Christopher S. Spencer, Douglas M. |
description | The Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) effectively enjoined the preclearance regime of the Voting Rights Act. The Court deemed the coverage formula, which determines the jurisdictions subject to preclearance, insufficiently grounded in current conditions. This Article proposes a new, legally defensible approach to coverage based on between-state differences in the proportion of voting age citizens who subscribe to negative stereotypes about racial minorities and who vote accordingly. The new coverage formula could also account for racially polarized voting and minority population size, but, for constitutional reasons, subjective discrimination by voters is the essential criterion. We demonstrate that the racial-stereotyping, polarized-voting, and population-size criteria would yield similar patterns of coverage, at least with respect to African Americans, and we show, ironically, that the new pattern of coverage would coincide with historic coverage under the "outdated" formula invalidated by Shelby County. Recently developed statistical techniques permit the new coverage formula to be further refined based on estimates of racial stereotyping within substate geographic units, such as cities and counties. We suggest that Congress establish default rules for coverage based on our state-level results, and delegate authority to make substate coverage determinations to an administrative agency (along with other responsibilities for keeping the coverage formula up to date). Finally, we show that if Congress does not act, the courts could use our results to reestablish coverage in a number of states, entering much broader "bail in" remedies for constitutional violations than would otherwise be justified. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_jstor_primary_24758164</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><informt_id>10.3316/agispt.20231222100730</informt_id><jstor_id>24758164</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>24758164</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-j270t-e6008e514dfc541d800fa5600fc2c22424ea2a2916b6ba9c11515085558417363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kFtLAzEQhRdRsFZ_ghDweSGTy158K6W2hYLSVl9Dms3upmw3a5IK--9NqT4Nc_jmzJm5SSZQMpJmnJHbZIIxLlIgBO6TB--PsQWW40nS7luNlto2Tg7tiGyNtlIZ2aFd0E7bMA6mb17R4sdUulcayb5C69PQGSWDsb1HtXXoaztDH06rTksnL9SsjtNo1-ruMKK5PfdhfEzuatl5_fRXp8nn22I_X6Wb9-V6PtukR5LjkOosBtUcWFUrzqAqMK4lj2KtiCKEEaYlkaSE7JAdZKkAOHBccM4LBjnN6DR5ufoOzn6ftQ_iaM-ujysFZLjEJSUYIrW6Uu5kgpCN8UMQPsZXrTB9vOkiW9eIyhoBWFAK2T9GMKHxkwQwzimOVs9Xq6MP1onBmZN0oyAs5wVkjP4CRGt04Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1609093201</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Geography of Racial Stereotyping: Evidence and Implications for VRA Preclearance After Shelby County</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Elmendorf, Christopher S. ; Spencer, Douglas M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Elmendorf, Christopher S. ; Spencer, Douglas M.</creatorcontrib><description>The Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) effectively enjoined the preclearance regime of the Voting Rights Act. The Court deemed the coverage formula, which determines the jurisdictions subject to preclearance, insufficiently grounded in current conditions. This Article proposes a new, legally defensible approach to coverage based on between-state differences in the proportion of voting age citizens who subscribe to negative stereotypes about racial minorities and who vote accordingly. The new coverage formula could also account for racially polarized voting and minority population size, but, for constitutional reasons, subjective discrimination by voters is the essential criterion. We demonstrate that the racial-stereotyping, polarized-voting, and population-size criteria would yield similar patterns of coverage, at least with respect to African Americans, and we show, ironically, that the new pattern of coverage would coincide with historic coverage under the "outdated" formula invalidated by Shelby County. Recently developed statistical techniques permit the new coverage formula to be further refined based on estimates of racial stereotyping within substate geographic units, such as cities and counties. We suggest that Congress establish default rules for coverage based on our state-level results, and delegate authority to make substate coverage determinations to an administrative agency (along with other responsibilities for keeping the coverage formula up to date). Finally, we show that if Congress does not act, the courts could use our results to reestablish coverage in a number of states, entering much broader "bail in" remedies for constitutional violations than would otherwise be justified.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-1221</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1942-6542</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CLARDJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berkeley CA United States of America: Joe Christensen, Inc</publisher><subject>Administrative agencies ; Age ; Asian Americans ; Boundaries ; Constitutional law ; Geography ; Hispanic Americans ; Jurisdiction ; Law and legislation ; Legal status, laws, etc ; Minorities ; Minority & ethnic groups ; Minority voters ; Political candidates ; Prejudices ; Racial discrimination ; Racial stereotypes ; States ; Stereotypes ; Studies ; Suffrage ; Supreme Court decisions ; Voting ; Voting age ; Voting rights</subject><ispartof>California law review, 2014-10, Vol.102 (5), p.1123-1180</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2014 California Law Review, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright University of California Press Oct 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24758164$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24758164$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,58016,58249</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Elmendorf, Christopher S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spencer, Douglas M.</creatorcontrib><title>The Geography of Racial Stereotyping: Evidence and Implications for VRA Preclearance After Shelby County</title><title>California law review</title><description>The Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) effectively enjoined the preclearance regime of the Voting Rights Act. The Court deemed the coverage formula, which determines the jurisdictions subject to preclearance, insufficiently grounded in current conditions. This Article proposes a new, legally defensible approach to coverage based on between-state differences in the proportion of voting age citizens who subscribe to negative stereotypes about racial minorities and who vote accordingly. The new coverage formula could also account for racially polarized voting and minority population size, but, for constitutional reasons, subjective discrimination by voters is the essential criterion. We demonstrate that the racial-stereotyping, polarized-voting, and population-size criteria would yield similar patterns of coverage, at least with respect to African Americans, and we show, ironically, that the new pattern of coverage would coincide with historic coverage under the "outdated" formula invalidated by Shelby County. Recently developed statistical techniques permit the new coverage formula to be further refined based on estimates of racial stereotyping within substate geographic units, such as cities and counties. We suggest that Congress establish default rules for coverage based on our state-level results, and delegate authority to make substate coverage determinations to an administrative agency (along with other responsibilities for keeping the coverage formula up to date). Finally, we show that if Congress does not act, the courts could use our results to reestablish coverage in a number of states, entering much broader "bail in" remedies for constitutional violations than would otherwise be justified.</description><subject>Administrative agencies</subject><subject>Age</subject><subject>Asian Americans</subject><subject>Boundaries</subject><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Geography</subject><subject>Hispanic Americans</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Law and legislation</subject><subject>Legal status, laws, etc</subject><subject>Minorities</subject><subject>Minority & ethnic groups</subject><subject>Minority voters</subject><subject>Political candidates</subject><subject>Prejudices</subject><subject>Racial discrimination</subject><subject>Racial stereotypes</subject><subject>States</subject><subject>Stereotypes</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Suffrage</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><subject>Voting</subject><subject>Voting age</subject><subject>Voting rights</subject><issn>0008-1221</issn><issn>1942-6542</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNo1kFtLAzEQhRdRsFZ_ghDweSGTy158K6W2hYLSVl9Dms3upmw3a5IK--9NqT4Nc_jmzJm5SSZQMpJmnJHbZIIxLlIgBO6TB--PsQWW40nS7luNlto2Tg7tiGyNtlIZ2aFd0E7bMA6mb17R4sdUulcayb5C69PQGSWDsb1HtXXoaztDH06rTksnL9SsjtNo1-ruMKK5PfdhfEzuatl5_fRXp8nn22I_X6Wb9-V6PtukR5LjkOosBtUcWFUrzqAqMK4lj2KtiCKEEaYlkaSE7JAdZKkAOHBccM4LBjnN6DR5ufoOzn6ftQ_iaM-ujysFZLjEJSUYIrW6Uu5kgpCN8UMQPsZXrTB9vOkiW9eIyhoBWFAK2T9GMKHxkwQwzimOVs9Xq6MP1onBmZN0oyAs5wVkjP4CRGt04Q</recordid><startdate>20141001</startdate><enddate>20141001</enddate><creator>Elmendorf, Christopher S.</creator><creator>Spencer, Douglas M.</creator><general>Joe Christensen, Inc</general><general>California Law Review Inc</general><general>University of California - Berkeley, School of Law</general><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>20141001</creationdate><title>The Geography of Racial Stereotyping: Evidence and Implications for VRA Preclearance After Shelby County</title><author>Elmendorf, Christopher S. ; Spencer, Douglas M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j270t-e6008e514dfc541d800fa5600fc2c22424ea2a2916b6ba9c11515085558417363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Administrative agencies</topic><topic>Age</topic><topic>Asian Americans</topic><topic>Boundaries</topic><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Geography</topic><topic>Hispanic Americans</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Law and legislation</topic><topic>Legal status, laws, etc</topic><topic>Minorities</topic><topic>Minority & ethnic groups</topic><topic>Minority voters</topic><topic>Political candidates</topic><topic>Prejudices</topic><topic>Racial discrimination</topic><topic>Racial stereotypes</topic><topic>States</topic><topic>Stereotypes</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Suffrage</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><topic>Voting</topic><topic>Voting age</topic><topic>Voting rights</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Elmendorf, Christopher S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spencer, Douglas M.</creatorcontrib><jtitle>California law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Elmendorf, Christopher S.</au><au>Spencer, Douglas M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Geography of Racial Stereotyping: Evidence and Implications for VRA Preclearance After Shelby County</atitle><jtitle>California law review</jtitle><date>2014-10-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>102</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1123</spage><epage>1180</epage><pages>1123-1180</pages><issn>0008-1221</issn><eissn>1942-6542</eissn><coden>CLARDJ</coden><abstract>The Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) effectively enjoined the preclearance regime of the Voting Rights Act. The Court deemed the coverage formula, which determines the jurisdictions subject to preclearance, insufficiently grounded in current conditions. This Article proposes a new, legally defensible approach to coverage based on between-state differences in the proportion of voting age citizens who subscribe to negative stereotypes about racial minorities and who vote accordingly. The new coverage formula could also account for racially polarized voting and minority population size, but, for constitutional reasons, subjective discrimination by voters is the essential criterion. We demonstrate that the racial-stereotyping, polarized-voting, and population-size criteria would yield similar patterns of coverage, at least with respect to African Americans, and we show, ironically, that the new pattern of coverage would coincide with historic coverage under the "outdated" formula invalidated by Shelby County. Recently developed statistical techniques permit the new coverage formula to be further refined based on estimates of racial stereotyping within substate geographic units, such as cities and counties. We suggest that Congress establish default rules for coverage based on our state-level results, and delegate authority to make substate coverage determinations to an administrative agency (along with other responsibilities for keeping the coverage formula up to date). Finally, we show that if Congress does not act, the courts could use our results to reestablish coverage in a number of states, entering much broader "bail in" remedies for constitutional violations than would otherwise be justified.</abstract><cop>Berkeley CA United States of America</cop><pub>Joe Christensen, Inc</pub><tpages>58</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0008-1221 |
ispartof | California law review, 2014-10, Vol.102 (5), p.1123-1180 |
issn | 0008-1221 1942-6542 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_jstor_primary_24758164 |
source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Administrative agencies Age Asian Americans Boundaries Constitutional law Geography Hispanic Americans Jurisdiction Law and legislation Legal status, laws, etc Minorities Minority & ethnic groups Minority voters Political candidates Prejudices Racial discrimination Racial stereotypes States Stereotypes Studies Suffrage Supreme Court decisions Voting Voting age Voting rights |
title | The Geography of Racial Stereotyping: Evidence and Implications for VRA Preclearance After Shelby County |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T13%3A13%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Geography%20of%20Racial%20Stereotyping:%20Evidence%20and%20Implications%20for%20VRA%20Preclearance%20After%20Shelby%20County&rft.jtitle=California%20law%20review&rft.au=Elmendorf,%20Christopher%20S.&rft.date=2014-10-01&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1123&rft.epage=1180&rft.pages=1123-1180&rft.issn=0008-1221&rft.eissn=1942-6542&rft.coden=CLARDJ&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E24758164%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1609093201&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_informt_id=10.3316/agispt.20231222100730&rft_jstor_id=24758164&rfr_iscdi=true |