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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:California law review 2014-10, Vol.102 (5), p.1123-1180
Hauptverfasser: Elmendorf, Christopher S., Spencer, Douglas M.
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Americans, and we show, ironically, that the new pattern of coverage would coincide with historic coverage under the "outdated" formula invalidated by Shelby County.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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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