1. Political incorporation of non-whites slow in cities & counties - Why important?Political incorporation of non-whites slow in cities & counties - Why important? –Virtues of “descriptive” representation –Empowerment theory –Fairness History of discriminationHistory of discrimination Progress in US House & in larger citiesProgress in US House & in larger cities Minority Representation

2. 15 th 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

3. Voting Rights Act, 1965Voting 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 extendedAmended and extended –(1975, 1982, 1992; 2006 for 25 more years) –Section 5 before USSC now Minority Representation

4. Section 2 coverage enforces 15th Amend.Section 2 coverage enforces 15th Amend. Prohibits “minority vote dilution”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 tactics? Which minorities? What proof of discriminationWhat proof of discrimination Minority Representation

5. Section 2 allows plaintiff to challenge local at-large election rules ifSection 2 allows plaintiff to challenge local at-large election rules if (1982 amendment):(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

6. Section 5 coverageSection 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”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)Must consider EFFECT of rules (retrogression) Is “purpose” or “intent” to dilute minority vote powerIs “purpose” or “intent” to dilute minority vote power Minority Representation

7. Section 5 coverageSection 5 coverage Any change can’t deny right to vote on basis of race, color, or language groupAny change can’t deny right to vote on basis of race, color, or language group USSC gutted this June, 2013USSC gutted this June, 2013 Shelby Co. v. Holder formula determining who covered by Sec. 5: ‘too old’ Minority Representation

8. 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,

9. Section 5 coverageSection 5 coverage Will change in election rule affect value of vote? The number of minority elected officials?Will change in election rule affect value of vote? The number of minority elected officials? Formula / Covered areas: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

10. 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 south changedIs race no longer a factor in voting? Has the south changed Are racially motivated election rules now a thing of the past?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’Congress re-enacted 99-0 it out of fear & ‘political correctness’ http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2012/12- 96http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2012/12- 96http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2012/12- 96http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2012/12- 96 46min-53:2046min-53:20 Minority Representation

11. Section 203 coverage (1992, 2006)Section 203 coverage (1992, 2006) Language minoritiesLanguage minorities –Link btwn. language and low turnout –Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Native American, 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 language group discriminated against. Minority Representation

12. 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 10,000 in jurisdiction US Citizens of single language group over 10,000 in jurisdiction Is more than 5% of population Is more than 5% of population On reservation, 5% of all residents On reservation, 5% of all residents Illiteracy rate of groups higher than national average Illiteracy rate of groups higher than national average What remedies? What remedies? Minority Representation

13. 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) Minority Representation

14. 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

15. Section 2 Section 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 voting Racially polarized voting Majority of whites vote as a block to deny minority group chance of representation Majority of whites vote as a block to deny minority group chance of representation What is RPV? No bright line What is RPV? No bright line 90 – 10 ? 90 – 10 ? 52 – 49? 52 – 49? Minority Representation

16. 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

17. Many places still use at-large elections Many places still use at-large elections Many in Washington State Many in Washington State Yakima just lost VRA case Yakima just lost VRA case Cent. & Ea. WA 92% of elections at large Cent. & 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

18. Illustrating RPV (M. Barreto)

22. 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)64% Gonzales (np)36%Danielson (np)64% Gonzales (np)36% McKenna (R)50%Inslee (D) 36%McKenna (R)50%Inslee (D) 36% Dunn (R)48%Ferguson (D) 38%Dunn (R)48%Ferguson (D) 38% Baumgartner (R) 38% Cantwell (D) 43%Baumgartner (R) 38% Cantwell (D) 43% Illustrating RPV (M. Barreto)

23. WhiteAfrAmLatino US pop 69%1213 State leg 89 8 2 Local ??? ??? Most non-whites elected at local level are from states covered by the VRA: 66% of Asians, 61% of Blacks, 82 % Latinos Latinos Minority Representation

24. But representation does not always require Majority Minority context But representation does not always require Majority Minority context % of Local Black elected officials from Majority Black counties % of Local Black elected officials from Majority Black counties County30% County30% School Board18% School Board18% City Town20% City Town20% Minority Representation

25. USSC backing away from VRA USSC backing away from VRA 2013 Mobile v Holder 2013 Mobile v Holder 2009 challenge to Section 5 2009 challenge to Section 5 Granting places power to “bail out” Granting places power to “bail out” Nortwest Austin v Holder Nortwest Austin v Holder Some cite election of Obama as reason to weaken VRA Some cite election of Obama as reason to weaken VRA “Things have change….” Maybe….but not completely “Things have change….” Maybe….but not completely Minority Representation

26. What if minority group not spatially compact? What if minority group not spatially compact? Other remedies: Other remedies: Cumulative voting as alternative Cumulative voting as alternative Number of votes = number of seats Number of votes = number of seats Minority Representation

27. NC 12 th CD 1992 What if tough to draw Majority- Minority District?

28. 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

29. 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...

30. 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 %

31. 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 votingif racially polarized voting....

32. Minority Representation Standard Voting 3 seat example (3 seats, 10,000 voters. 65% Anglo, 35% Latino) Ethn.namevotes for seat 1: WA6,000 elected LF3,500 WH 500 seat 2 WB4,000 elected LD3,500 WE2,500 seat 3: WC 6,500 elected LG 3,500

33. Minority Representation CV, 3 seat example 10,000 X 3 votes Ethn.namevotes for WA7,500 elected WB6,500 elected WC5,000 WX 250 WH 0 LF8,000 elected WE 250 LG2,500