[EL] poverty discussion in voting rights cases

[George Korbel]

When we began offering this evidence in the 1970s it was for poor performance particularly in the educational data when suing school districts. In White v Regester There was testimony that the  that minority educational problems were well known to the legislature but refuses to appropriate the money necessary to solve the problem.
It will also was thought of as an egg shell skull tort theory that the problems of at large elections majority vote run off etc were more significant for minority voters. Finally there seemed to be correlations between these socio economic income and education and voting.

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Carl Klarner <carl.klarner at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:56:16 PM
To: John Tanner
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu; Hess, Doug
Subject: Re: [EL] poverty discussion in voting rights cases

Hi All,

Lower participation (or vote dilution) doesn't matter if the
preferences of a group aren't distinct.

Carl

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:47 PM, John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election



--
Dr. Carl Klarner

Academic / Political Consultant

Department of Political Science

University of Florida, Gainesville

Klarnerpolitics.com

Former Associate Professor of Political Science

Carl.Klarner at gmail.com

Cell: 812-514-9060
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180321/66fd54de/attachment.html>