[EL] poverty discussion in voting rights cases

[John Tanner]

Per Zimmer v. McKeithen — and the subsequent Senate Report onto amendments to Section 2 — socio-economic disparities  are factors for the co9urt to consider because of their link to lower participation.  Recall that for years, it was widely thought that districts had to be 65% black in order for there to be an equal opportunity to elect (65% total pop. = 60% BVAP = 55% registration = 50% turnout.   A lack of responsiveness to the needs fo the minority community was another Zimmer/Senate factor, but the opportunity for a local government to do much about the disparities vitiated that factor, as a practical matter.  

None of those ratios are now meaningful, if they ever were.  Defendants sometimes raise the actual participation rate to counter the need for a black supermajority, but then most defendants love black supermajorities — a la the AL, NC, and VA redistricting cases.

In re the Sumter County School Board, I was involved in a 1986 case that forced the Sumter County School District to change to district elections.  (They changed back after Shelby County.)  There was a good-sized neighborhood of black Jehovah’s Witnesses who, of course, would not vote.  That complicated drawing an effective remedy.

I recall flying down with a fresh slip opinion of Gingles, just issued the day before, and going over it in detail with the judge as we stood around his desk, sharing that one copy.  The judge looked at defense counsel and groaned, “There’s nothing we can do!"
 

> On Mar 20, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Hess, Doug <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU> wrote:
> 
> In skimming the text of the ACLU Sumter County order, link below, the discussion of poverty and socio-economic status in the order reminded of a question I've had for some time. 
> 
> What is (or was) the reason for drawing attention to inequalities in a community or the connection between poverty and voting rights?
> 
> Is it that a community with such disparity implies that policies are not addressing communities fairly which implies that the election system does not represent interests?
> 
> Or is it that such disparity implies a community could be susceptible to suppression (an argument in the 1960s in the South was that poverty makes political participation more risky) and therefore election design needs closer scrutiny, so to speak?
> 
> At the end of the first section, the order concludes that "[t]hese disparities result in decreased political participation." But that doesn't explain the discussion on inequality. I.e., why don't they look at the disparity in participation directly?
> 
> Thanks for any background on this.
> 
> https://www.acluga.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu-sumter-county-court-order-on-preliminary-injunction-2018.pdf
> 
> Douglas R Hess
> Assistant Professor of Political Science
> Grinnell College
> 1210 Park Street, Carnegie Hall #309
> Grinnell, IA 50112 
> phone: 641-269-4383
> 
> http://www.douglasrhess.com 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election