I again recommend this forthcoming chapter on the Section 4 trigger and
bailout to those interested in this subject. I list the number of
jurisdictions covered using (2004 CVAP < 50%) under various configurations,
and in retrospect, should have mapped out the data like Keith.
http://elections.gmu.edu/McDonald%202005%20VRA%20Section%204.pdf
A technicality that I and Keith do not address is that turnout has been
calculated in the past by the Director of the Census (authorized to make the
calculations under the VRA, I believe a revised VRA should move that
authority to the EAC) for townships in states like Massachusetts, etc. and
for election districts in Alaska. So, there are probably a few more local
jurisdictions that will be covered than we calculate since the data are
presented at the county level.
I would add that using participation as the only factor in the trigger
formula would be a significant departure from past practices. Previously,
the trigger formula had two prongs: that a jurisdiction had used a
discriminatory "test or device" (such as a literacy test) in the 1964
presidential election or in the case of the language minority provisions,
conducted English-only elections in areas with high concentrations of
citizens with low levels of English proficiency AND that turnout (VAP, and
later CVAP) was below 50%. Some states escaped coverage when it was
determined that their test or device was not used in a discriminatory
manner, such as Alaska's good morals test that disfranchised prostitutes.
Hawaii and other jurisdictions escaped coverage when it was determined that
the state's language minority was sufficiently fluent in English.
Hawaii troubles me. Although it has a low turnout in presidential election
years, it is consistently among the top turnout states in midterm elections.
I believe that Hawaii's low presidential election turnout is more a
consequence of the state's strong Democratic tendencies in presidential
elections combined with the remote location, which makes it a low priority
target for the presidential campaigns, rather than of purposeful
discrimination. This, plus the fact the presidential election outcome (or
at least whether or not Hawaii is pivotal) is often known before the polls
close. Hawaii, too, might strongly argue that turnout rates should be
calculated while removing the non-resident military population based in the
state.
------------
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Assistant Professor, George Mason University
Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon@gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu [mailto:owner-election-
law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of rkgaddie@ou.edu
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:58 AM
To: Rick Hasen
Cc: election-law
Subject: Re: Scope of Norwood Amendment Impact
Rick, look at the geography and also the popualtion concetrations. You
keep most of Georgia, SC, expand coverage in FL, SC, and also pickup AR
and TN -- southern states which would have been picked up in 1964 had
their participation been lower back then. You pick up counties in SD
where there has been S2 litigation, and expand coverage in CA, NY --
states picked up by the 1970 amendment.
Also recall that partial coverage in a state has not stopped the DOJ from
being able to alter or challenge lines in counties not covered, or from
protecting voting rights in non-covered countied that share districts with
covered counties -- see the Florida 2001 legislative remap as an example,
where DOJ demanded changes in Dade and Broward relative to dsitricts that
entered Collier and Monroe.
I'm a data guy. The data say that a proposed new trigger picks up most of
the currently covered jurisdictions, and also some places where we ought
to be asking "what is happening with voter participation?"
We know this will fail, but I think the data deserve a look.
_____________________________
Ronald Keith Gaddie
Professor of Political Science
The University of Oklahoma
455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
Norman, OK 73019-2001
Phone 405-325-4989
Fax 405-325-0718
E-mail: rkgaddie@ou.edu
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1