Download - The Geography of Discrimination in Voting: MRP Meets the VRA

Geography of Prejudice Coverage Formula Racially Polarized Voting VRA Section 2

The Geography of Discrimination in Voting:MRP Meets the VRA

Christopher S. ElmendorfUniversity of California, Davis, School of Law

Douglas M. SpencerUniversity of Connecticut, School of Law

CCES Conference 2013

Sundance, Utah

Elmendorf & Spencer MRP Meets VRA CCES 2013 1 / 5


Hitting the bull’s eye throwing a dart backwards over shoulder.

MEASURE OF RACIAL PREJUDICE BY STATE (2008)

Disaggregated MRP

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

OregonIdahoUtah

MontanaWashington

ColoradoWyoming

New HampshireMassachusetts

ArizonaMaine

VermontRhode Island

NevadaAlaska

ConnecticutCalifornia

North DakotaWest VirginiaSouth Dakota

New YorkMinnesota

New MexicoIowa

NebraskaIndianaKansas

KentuckyVirginia

MarylandNew Jersey

WisconsinMissouri

District of ColumbiaMichigan

OhioNorth Carolina

IllinoisDelaware

PennsylvaniaHawaii

South CarolinaTennesseeOklahoma

FloridaArkansas

GeorgiaTexas

AlabamaMississippiLouisiana

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50Average difference between scores for own vs. black

Section 5

●●

●●

●●

Covered

Partially covered

Not covered

Average prejudice score



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

Like

lihoo

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 ...



Prejudice is ambiguously correlated with racially polarized voting.

RACIAL PREJUDICE vs. RPV (2008)

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40 50PerStewlabehere RPV Rank

MR

P r

ank

MRP

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40 50PerStewlabehere RPV Rank

Dis

aggr

egat

ed r

ank

Disaggregation



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

Create sensiblepresumptions whetherracial discriminationimpairs minoritypolitical participation

(Cannot solve “but-for”causal test)



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

Create sensiblepresumptions whetherracial discriminationimpairs minoritypolitical participation

(Cannot solve “but-for”causal test)



The Geography of Discrimination in Voting:MRP Meets the VRA

Christopher S. ElmendorfUniversity of California, Davis, School of Law

Douglas M. SpencerUniversity of Connecticut, School of Law

CCES Conference 2013

Sundance, Utah



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)


Like

lihoo

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 state2 states

3 states

4 states

5 states6 states 7 states

At least ...



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)


Like

lihoo

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

5 states6 states

7 states

At least ...



Did Congress “hit the bullseye throwing dart over shoulder”?

MEASURE OF NEGATIVE RACIAL STEREOTYPES BY STATE

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

OregonIdahoUtah

MontanaWashington

ColoradoWyoming


ArizonaMaine

VermontRhode Island

NevadaAlaska

ConnecticutCalifornia

North DakotaWest VirginiaSouth Dakota

New YorkMinnesota

New MexicoIowa

NebraskaIndianaKansas

KentuckyVirginia

MarylandNew Jersey

WisconsinMissouri

District of ColumbiaMichigan

OhioNorth Carolina

IllinoisDelaware

PennsylvaniaHawaii

South CarolinaTennesseeOklahoma

FloridaArkansas

GeorgiaTexas


0 10 20 30 40 50Average difference between scores for own vs. black

Average prejudice score

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

OregonUtah

IdahoMontana

WashingtonWyomingColorado


ArizonaAlaskaMaine

Rhode IslandCaliforniaVermontNevada

North DakotaConnecticut

South DakotaNew Mexico

New YorkHawaii

West VirginiaMinnesotaNebraskaMaryland

IowaKansasVirginia

New JerseyDistrict of Columbia

IndianaKentucky

WisconsinMissouri

IllinoisNorth Carolina

DelawareMichigan

OhioOklahoma

FloridaTexas

South CarolinaPennsylvania

TennesseeGeorgia

ArkansasAlabama

MississippiLouisiana

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00Proportion of residents with attitudes > national avg.

Section 5

●●

●●

●●

Covered

Partially covered

Not covered

Proportion above average

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

IdahoMontana

UtahOregon

WyomingNew Hampshire

WashingtonMaine

ColoradoMassachusetts

North DakotaRhode Island

ArizonaVermont

AlaskaIowa

South DakotaWest Virginia

ConnecticutNevadaIndiana

MinnesotaNebraskaNew York

KansasKentuckyCalifornia

WisconsinMissouriVirginia

MarylandMichigan

New JerseyOhio

New MexicoDistrict of Columbia

North CarolinaPennsylvania

IllinoisDelaware

HawaiiOklahoma

South CarolinaFlorida

TennesseeArkansas

TexasGeorgia


0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00Proportion of residents with attitudes > 75th percentile

Proportion in top quartile



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 50CCES rank

NA

ES

ran

k Section 5

●

●

●

Covered

Partially covered

Not covered



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 thatthe citizens in the South are moreracist than citizens in the North?

SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI:It is not, and I do not know theanswer to that, Your Honor . . .



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 thatthe citizens in the South are moreracist than citizens in the North?

SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI:It is not, and I do not know theanswer to that, Your Honor . . .
