[Between 2012 and 2020, the white-Black turnout gap grew between
9.2 and 20.9 percentage points across five of the six states
originally covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.]
[[link removed]]

RACIAL TURNOUT GAP GREW IN JURISDICTIONS PREVIOUSLY COVERED BY THE
VOTING RIGHTS ACT  
[[link removed]]


 

Kevin Morris, Peter Miller, Coryn Grange
August 20, 2021
Brennan Center for Justice
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

_ Between 2012 and 2020, the white-Black turnout gap grew between 9.2
and 20.9 percentage points across five of the six states originally
covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. _

March On for Voting Rights, Washington, D.C. 28 August 2021, CC BY-SA
4.0

 

In 2013, when Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the Supreme
Court’s majority opinion in _Shelby County v. Holder, _he argued
[[link removed]] that the
Voting Rights Act of 1965’s preclearance requirement
[[link removed]] under
Section 5 was no longer needed because “African-American voter
turnout has come to exceed white voter turnout in five of the six
States [Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina]
originally covered by §5 with a gap in the sixth State of less than
one half of one percent [Virginia].” Although this was true in 2012
— and only 2012 — the white-Black turnout gap in these states
reopened in subsequent years, and by 2020, white turnout exceeded
Black turnout in five of the six states.

REPLICATING THE SHELBY COUNTY OPINION METHODS

Using the same source of census data that was used in the _Shelby
County_ opinion, we show that the racial turnout gap has increased in
most jurisdictions that were previously covered by preclearance.
Racial turnout rates are calculated by dividing the number of ballots
cast by the estimated citizen population above the age of 18. This
analysis was compiled from the past 24 years of general-election voter
data from eight states. The states used are based on the eight states
the Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA), as introduced in 2019, will
likely cover,
[[link removed]] according
to recent congressional testimony by George Washington University law
professor Peyton McCrary. Those states are Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas —
all of which were covered in whole or in part by the preclearance
provisions of the Voting Rights Act before S_helby County._

Broad conclusions made about the turnout of eligible Latino and Asian
voters in states where they are underrepresented can be imprecise due
to the small sample size provided by census data. We controlled for
this deficiency in data by only analyzing states’ Latino and Asian
American turnout for years that had at least 30
[[link removed]] Latino
and Asian American eligible voters accounted for. Overall, we found
that the larger the Latino and Asian American population of states,
the closer the size the white-nonwhite turnout gap mirrored the
results of the Brennan Center’s examination of the same gap at a
nationwide level
[[link removed]],
due to the greater representation of these undercounted groups. When
this wasn’t the case, the white-nonwhite gap more closely mirrored
the white-Black gap.

We also believe the white-nonwhite gap may be underestimated, as the
census data we use for analysis fails to provide information on Native
American voter turnout, a group that is significantly impacted by
discriminatory voting laws. However, we do know from the National
Congress of American Indians
[[link removed]] that
registered voters in this group have a lower turnout rate than other
racial groups, which provides the basis for our assumption.

RACIAL TURNOUT GAPS IN JURISDICTIONS TO BE COVERED BY THE VOTING
RIGHTS ADVANCEMENT ACT

While in 2012, just before the _Shelby County _decision, the
white-Black turnout gap was shrinking in the states we analyzed, and
in many instances even briefly closed, this trend has reversed in the
years since. In 2012, seven out of the eight states had Black voter
turnout higher than that of white voters. In 2020, the reverse is true
— in only one of the eight states was Black turnout higher than
white turnout.

In a few states, this reversal is especially alarming. Louisiana,
South Carolina, and Texas had higher turnout gaps in 2020 than at any
point in the past 24 years. South Carolina’s white-Black turnout gap
widened the most, expanding by a staggering 20.9 percentage points
within the eight years since _Shelby County_. While Black turnout
exceeded white turnout in 2012, white turnout was more than 15
percentage points higher than Black turnout in 2020.

A similar trend can be seen in the gap between white voters and all
nonwhite voters. The total white-nonwhite turnout gap has grown since
2012 in all of the eight states likely to be covered under the VRAA.
There is sufficient data to conclude that the gap has increased for
Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Texas. In Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the
sample sizes in the available 2020 census data are too small for
Hispanic and Asian voters to make much of a difference in an overall
white-nonwhite turnout gap estimation that is distinct from the
white-Black turnout gap in those states. Notably, North Carolina went
from having a larger share of nonwhite voters represented in 2012 with
a white-nonwhite gap of -9.3 percentage points to having a gap of 5.4
percentage points, a jump of 14.7 percentage points, far greater than
the national average of 4.6 percentage points
[[link removed]].

Overall, we see that the growth in the racial turnout gaps between
2012 and 2020 were even starker in the states likely to be subject to
preclearance under the VRAA than those seen nationwide. Seven out of
the eight states had white-nonwhite turnout gaps that grew more than
the national rate of 4.6 percentage points between 2012 and 2020.
 And in four out of the eight states to be subject to preclearance
under the VRAA, the white-Black turnout gap grew more than the
national rate of 10.3 percentage points from 2012 to 2020.

Expanding the analysis to other nonwhite groups also reveals that,
even in 2012, progress on closing racial turnout gaps was not as
significant as the _Shelby County _decision suggested. The Court
only examined the white-Black turnout gap, which did temporarily close
in many states in 2012, likely due to Barack Obama being on the ballot
and Black voter turnout subsequently surging. But with the exception
of Latino voter turnout briefly surpassing white turnout in Florida in
2012 and Louisiana in 2012 and 2016, Latino voter turnout has lagged
behind white voter turnout for the last 24 years in every state where
those rates are measurable.

SHELBY COUNTY_’_S AFTERMATH

In 2013, the Supreme Court suggested that the closing of the racial
turnout gap supported the conclusion that the need for preclearance
was over. As this analysis shows, in the years following the _Shelby
County_ decision, these racial turnout gaps widened once again. The
reopening of the racial turnout gap likely has many causes, and it is
possible that the ending of the preclearance condition has played a
role. What is clear, however, is that the trends identified by the
Supreme Court have reversed themselves with alarming speed.

_KEVIN MORRIS is a quantitative researcher with the Democracy Program,
focusing on voting rights and elections. His research focuses on the
impact of laws and policies on access to the polls, with a particular
focus on rights restoration and voter list maintenance._

_Prior to joining the Brennan Center, Morris worked as an economic
researcher focusing on housing at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
and an economist at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. He
has a BA from Boston College in economics. He has a master’s degree
in urban planning from NYU’s Wagner School, with an emphasis in
quantitative methods and evaluation._

_PETER MILLER is a researcher at the Brennan Center focusing on
redistricting, voting, and elections. His research interests include
U.S. and comparative politics, voting behavior, political
institutions, and public opinion. His work has been published in
several peer-reviewed journals, including the Annual Review of
Political Science, Electoral Studies, Election Law Journal, American
Politics Research, and the Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and
Parties. One of Miller’s articles on redistricting commissions was
cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona State Legislature v.
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. He is a frequent
commentator on topics related to redistricting reform, voting rights,
and elections._

_Miller was a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Tampere, in
Finland, during the 2016–17 academic year. He was previously a
Podlich Fellow at the Center for the Study of Democracy at UC Irvine
and a Templeton Foundation Fellow in the Philosophy, Politics, and
Economics Program at the University of Pennsylvania. He holds a
doctorate and a master’s degree in political science from the
University of California, Irvine, and a bachelor’s degree in
political science from Reed College._

_CORYN GRANGE is Parke Fellow at The Brennan Center.  She is a NYU
Wagner Graduate School and CUNY Hunter College alumnus.  _

_Defend Our Democracy.  THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE fights to make
elections fair, end mass incarceration, and preserve our liberties —
in Congress, the states, the courts, and the court of public opinion.
Join us [[link removed]]
in building an America that is democratic, just, and free._

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web [[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [[link removed]]
Manage subscription [[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org [[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]