The Limits of Preclearance

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 ETHNIC STUDIES Du Bois Review-Social Science Research on Race Pub Date : 2023-11-07 DOI:10.1017/s1742058x23000152
Iris H. Zhang
{"title":"The Limits of Preclearance","authors":"Iris H. Zhang","doi":"10.1017/s1742058x23000152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court ended enforcement of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. As a result, over 3500 municipalities were released from the preclearance requirement to seek federal approval prior to enacting changes to elections. Despite the Court’s majority opinion that Section 5 was no longer needed, practices like enforcing strict voter ID requirements and last-minute polling place changes increased dramatically after Shelby County. However, one underexamined election change is changing municipal boundaries through annexations. Municipal annexations can weaken minority political representation in municipal elections if minority population shares decrease after annexation. Using difference-in-differences models, I analyze annexations for over 15,000 municipalities from 2007–2020 across all forty U.S. states with annexable land. I find no evidence that municipalities previously covered by Section 5 increased annexation activity or that they conducted more annexations that dilute Black and minority resident shares after Shelby County. Patterns of annexations pre-Shelby County suggest that the null finding can be explained by the limited effectiveness of Section 5 in preventing minority dilution through annexations when it was in place. This study underscores how municipal boundaries can be manipulated to perpetuate inequality and the limitations of federal legislation in preventing this practice.","PeriodicalId":47158,"journal":{"name":"Du Bois Review-Social Science Research on Race","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Du Bois Review-Social Science Research on Race","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742058x23000152","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHNIC STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court ended enforcement of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. As a result, over 3500 municipalities were released from the preclearance requirement to seek federal approval prior to enacting changes to elections. Despite the Court’s majority opinion that Section 5 was no longer needed, practices like enforcing strict voter ID requirements and last-minute polling place changes increased dramatically after Shelby County. However, one underexamined election change is changing municipal boundaries through annexations. Municipal annexations can weaken minority political representation in municipal elections if minority population shares decrease after annexation. Using difference-in-differences models, I analyze annexations for over 15,000 municipalities from 2007–2020 across all forty U.S. states with annexable land. I find no evidence that municipalities previously covered by Section 5 increased annexation activity or that they conducted more annexations that dilute Black and minority resident shares after Shelby County. Patterns of annexations pre-Shelby County suggest that the null finding can be explained by the limited effectiveness of Section 5 in preventing minority dilution through annexations when it was in place. This study underscores how municipal boundaries can be manipulated to perpetuate inequality and the limitations of federal legislation in preventing this practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预许可的限制
2013年6月25日,最高法院在谢尔比县诉霍尔德案中终止了1965年投票权法案第5条的执行。结果,超过3500个市政当局免除了在对选举作出改变之前必须获得联邦批准的事先许可要求。尽管法院的多数意见认为不再需要第5条,但在谢尔比县之后,强制执行严格的选民身份证要求和最后一刻改变投票地点等做法急剧增加。然而,一个被忽视的选举变化是通过兼并改变市政边界。如果兼并后少数民族人口比例下降,那么兼并会削弱少数民族在市政选举中的政治代表性。使用差异中的差异模型,我分析了2007-2020年间美国所有40个州15,000多个城市的并购地情况。我没有发现任何证据表明先前第5条涵盖的市政当局增加了兼并活动,或者在谢尔比县之后,他们进行了更多的吞并,稀释了黑人和少数民族居民的股份。谢尔比县之前的兼并模式表明,第5条在通过兼并防止少数族裔稀释方面的有效性有限,这可以解释为无效。这项研究强调了如何操纵城市边界以使不平等永久化,以及联邦立法在防止这种做法方面的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Four More Years! or So What?: The Mental Health Significance of Barack Obama’s 2012 Presidential Re-Election among Black Adults Miscegenation Madness: Interracial Intimacy and the Politics of ‘Purity’ in Twentieth-Century South Africa Principle-Policy and Principle-Personal Gaps in Americans’ Diversity Attitudes Foreshadowing Du Bois: James McCune Smith and the Shaping of Nineteenth Century Black Social Scientists Royalty, Racism, and Risk: An Analysis of Du Bois’s Thesis on Black Masculinity Among Young Black People with Diverse Sexual Identities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1