Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The Voting Rights Act created a method of oversight called “preclearance,” which was designed to prevent changes in state and local voting laws that may negatively affect minority groups. Following the ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, however, preclearance is no longer enforced. This study assesses the impact of recently implemented local voting restrictions on turnout across various demographic and political subgroups in North Carolina. Unlike other states, preclearance in North Carolina was implemented at the county level. Two approaches to the regression discontinuity-design are used to estimate de facto minority disenfranchisement. This study finds that the removal of Section 5 preclearance negatively affected Democratic primary turnout, but did not affect Democratic vote share. Secondary effects resulting in the removal of Section 5 preclearance may be responsible for disproportionately lower levels of overall turnout in formerly covered counties in 2016. Ultimately, the data suggest minimal effects on minority turnout rates.

Keywords

preclearance Voting Rights Act regression discontinuity-design turnout

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Angrist

J. D.

Pischke

J.-S.

(2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press.

Ansolabehere

Hersh

E. D.

(2017). ADGN: An algorithm for record linkage using address, date of birth, gender, and name. Statistics and Public Policy, 4(1), 1–10.

Barreto

M. A.

Nuño

S. A.

Sanchez

G. R.

(2009). The disproportionate impact of voter-ID requirements on the electorate—New evidence from Indiana. PS: Political Science & Politics, 42(1), 111–116.

Calonico

Cattaneo

M. D.

Titiunik

(2015). rdrobust: Robust data-driven statistical inference in regression-discontinuity designs (R Package Version 0.80). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rdrobust

Cattaneo

M. D.

Frandsen

B. R.

Titiunik

(2015). Randomization inference in the regression discontinuity design: An application to party advantages in the U.S. Senate. Journal of Causal Inference, 3(1), 1–24.

Cattaneo

M. D.

Idrobo

Titiunik

(2017). A practical introduction to regression discontinuity designs [Working paper]. https://sites.google.com/site/rdpackages/Cattaneo-Idrobo-Titiunik_2017_Cambridge.pdf

Cattaneo

M. D.

Titiunik

Vazquez-Bare

(2016). Inference in regression discontinuity designs under local randomization. Stata Journal, 16(2), 331–367.

Cattaneo

M. D.

Titiunik

Vazquez-Bare

(2017). rdlocrand: Local randomization methods for RD designs (R Package Version 0.2). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rdlocrand

Downs

(1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Row.

10.

Edwards

B. C.

(2014). Formulating voting rights act remedies to address current conditions. American Politics Research, 42(3), 376–408.

11.

Ervin

(1965, April 2). Senator Sam Ervin says. The Perquimans Weekly, pp. A7.

12.

Eure

(1969). North Carolina manual, 1969. Secretary of State of North Carolina.

13.

Flores

(2015). Latinos and the Voting Rights Act: The search for racial purpose. Lexington Books.

14.

Fresh

(2018). The effect of the Voting Rights Act on enfranchisement: Evidence from North Carolina. The Journal of Politics, 80(2), 713–718.

15.

Garrett

J. J.

(2010). The continued need for the Voting Rights Act: Examining second-generation discrimination. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 30(1), 77–96.

16.

Hansford

T. G.

Gomez

B. T.

(2010). Estimating the electoral effects of voter turnout. American Political Science Review, 104(2), 268–288.

17.

Hasen

R. L.

(2014). Shelby county and the illusion of minimalism. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 22(3), 713–745.

18.

Hood

M. V.

III Bullock

C. S. I.

(2008). Worth a thousand words? An analysis of Georgia’s voter identification statute. American Politics Research, 36(4), 555–579.

19.

Imbens

G. W.

Lemieux

(2008). Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 615–635.

20.

Katz

E. D.

(2014). Justice Ginsburg’s umbrella. In Bagenstos

Katz

(Eds.), A nation of widening opportunities? The Civil Rights Act at fifty (pp. 264–282). University of Michigan Press.

21.

Katz

E. D.

Aseinbrey

Baldwin

Cheuse

Weisbrodt

(2006). Documenting discrimination in voting: Judicial findings under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act since 1982: Final report of the Voting Rights Initiative, University of Michigan Law School. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 39, 643–772.

22.

Kaufmann

K. M.

Petrocik

J. R.

Shaw

D. R.

(2008). Unconventional wisdom: Facts and myths about American voters. Oxford University Press.

23.

Keele

Titiunik

(2018). Geographic natural experiments with interference: The effect of all-mail voting on turnout in Colorado. CESifo Economic Studies, 64(2), 127–149.

24.

Knuckey

(2017). The myth of the “two souths?” Racial resentment and white party identification in the deep south and rim south. Social Science Quarterly, 98(2), 728–749.

25.

Levitt

(2012). Election deform: The pursuit of unwarranted electoral regulation. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 11(1), 97–117.

26.

Long

J. S.

Ervin

L. H.

(2000). Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. The American Statistician, 54(3), 217–224.

27.

Mayhew

D. R.

(1974). Yale studies in political science: Congress: The electoral connection. Yale University Press.

28.

Murillo

(2017). Did voter suppression win President Trump the election? The decimation of the Voting Rights Act and the importance of section 5. University of San Francisco Law Review, 51(3), 591–614.

29.

NC Latino Health. (2003, February). North Carolina Institute of Medicine.

30.

Niemi

(1976). Costs of voting and nonvoting. Public Choice, 27, 115–119.

31.

Riker

W. H.

Ordeshook

P. C.

(1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. The American Political Science Review, 62(1), 25–42.

32.

Rubin

D. B.

(1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 688–701.

33.

Sigelman

Berry

W. D.

(1982). Cost and the calculus of voting. Political Behavior, 4(4), 419–428.

34.

The right to vote bill. (1965, August 7). The Carolina Times, A2.

35.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1959). Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, 1959. https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=473401

36.

Valentino

N. A.

Neuner

F. G.

(2017). Why the sky didn’t fall: Mobilizing anger in reaction to voter ID laws. Political Psychology, 38(2), 331–350.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.29 MB

Moving Forward or Backsliding: A Causal Inference Analysis of the Effects of the Shelby Decision in North Carolina

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material