The Geography of Discrimination in Voting: MRP Meets the VRAGeography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2
The Geography of Discrimination in Voting: MRP Meets the VRA
Christopher S. Elmendorf University of California, Davis, School of Law
Douglas M. Spencer University of Connecticut, School of Law
CCES Conference 2013
Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 1 / 5
Geography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2
Hitting the bull’s eye throwing a dart backwards over shoulder.
MEASURE OF RACIAL PREJUDICE BY STATE (2008)
Disaggregated MRP
New York Minnesota
New Mexico Iowa
Nebraska Indiana Kansas
Alabama Mississippi Louisiana
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Average difference between scores for own vs. black
Section 5
Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 2 / 5
Geography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2
The coverage formula has a “plainly legitimate sweep.”
RANKING COVERED STATES IN 10,000 SIMULATIONS (2008)
(A) Likelihood that covered states are 'most' prejudiced (mean score)
... in the top ___ states
d
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
0. 0
0. 2
0. 4
0. 6
0. 8
1. 0
1 state
2 states
3 states
4 states
5 states
6 states
7 states
At least ...
Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 3 / 5
Geography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2
Prejudice is ambiguously correlated with racially polarized voting.
RACIAL PREJUDICE vs. RPV (2008)

















































M R
P r
an k
D is
ag gr
eg at
ed r
an k
Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 4 / 5
Geography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2
The real payoff of MRP will be for sub-state estimation.
RACIAL PREJUDICE AND SECTION 2 Racial Resentment by County 2010 (CCES disaggregated −− White Rs)
<20% 20−40% 40−60% 60−80% >80%
County-level prejudice
(Cannot solve “but-for” causal test)
Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 5 / 5
Geography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2
The real payoff of MRP will be for sub-state estimation.
RACIAL PREJUDICE AND SECTION 2 Racial Resentment by County 2010 (CCES disaggregated −− White Rs)
<20% 20−40% 40−60% 60−80% >80%
County-level prejudice
(Cannot solve “but-for” causal test)
Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 5 / 5
Geography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2
The Geography of Discrimination in Voting: MRP Meets the VRA
Christopher S. Elmendorf University of California, Davis, School of Law
Douglas M. Spencer University of Connecticut, School of Law
CCES Conference 2013
Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 5 / 5
Geography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2
The coverage formula has a “plainly legitimate sweep.” RANKING COVERED STATES IN 10,000 SIMULATIONS
(B) Likelihood that covered states are 'most' prejudiced (above nat'l average)
... in the top ___ states
d
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
0. 0
0. 2
0. 4
0. 6
0. 8
1. 0
At least ...
Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 5 / 5
Geography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2
The coverage formula has a “plainly legitimate sweep.” RANKING COVERED STATES IN 10,000 SIMULATIONS
Likelihood that covered states are 'most' prejudiced (above 75th percentile)
... in the top ___ states
d
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
0. 0
0. 1
0. 2
0. 3
0. 4
0. 5
0. 6
0. 7
0. 8
0. 9
1. 0
1 state
2 states
3 states
4 states
Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 5 / 5
Geography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2
Did Congress “hit the bullseye throwing dart over shoulder”?
MEASURE OF NEGATIVE RACIAL STEREOTYPES BY STATE






































































































New York Minnesota
New Mexico Iowa
Nebraska Indiana Kansas
Alabama Mississippi Louisiana
0 10 20 30 40 50 Average difference between scores for own vs. black
Average prejudice score
North Dakota Connecticut
Iowa Kansas Virginia
Indiana Kentucky
Wisconsin Missouri
Tennessee Georgia
Arkansas Alabama
Mississippi Louisiana
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Proportion of residents with attitudes > national avg.
Section 5
North Carolina Pennsylvania
Alabama Mississippi Louisiana
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Proportion of residents with attitudes > 75th percentile
Proportion in top quartile
Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 5 / 5
Geography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2
Comparing “racial resentment” to “explicit stereotypes.”
CCES vs. ANNENBERG: 2008 & 2012
2008 2012
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 CCES rank
N A
E S
r an
Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 5 / 5
Geography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2
Our project explores relative differences in racial attitudes.
SHELBY COUNTY V. HOLDER (ORAL ARGUMENT, FEB. 27, 2013)
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is it the government’s submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?
SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI: It is not, and I do not know the answer to that, Your Honor . . .
Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 6 / 5
Geography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2
Our project explores relative differences in racial attitudes.
SHELBY COUNTY V. HOLDER (ORAL ARGUMENT, FEB. 27, 2013)
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is it the government’s submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?
SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI: It is not, and I do not know the answer to that, Your Honor . . .
Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 6 / 5
Geography of Prejudice