Minority Representation Political incorporation of non-whites slow

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 • 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 • • • 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 15 th 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 • 46 min-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)

Illustrating RPV (M. Barreto)

Illustrating RPV (M. Barreto) See pdfs of WA State Supreme Court race Danielson v. Gonzales (Statewide, Danielson 40%, Gonz. 60%) Yakima Co (2012 primary): • Danielson (np) • Mc. Kenna (R) • Dunn (R) • Baumgartner (R) 64% 50% 48% 38% Gonzales (np) Inslee (D) Ferguson (D) Cantwell (D) 36% 38% 43%

Minority Representation White US pop 69% State leg 89 Local ? ? ? Afr. Am 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 12 th CD 1992 What if tough to draw Majority. Minority 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. . 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 3, 500 elected W L W B D E 4, 000 3, 500 2, 500 elected 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 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