For those of you looking for the Class Complaint for Injunctive and and Declaratory Relief for the Section 4(e) VRA Spanish-language ballots & other materials for American citizens in Florida educated in Spanish-speaking Puerto Rican schools, it’s available here

MARTA VALENTINA RIVERA MADERA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; FAITH IN FLORIDA, HISPANIC FEDERATION, MI FAMILIA VOTA EDUCATION FUND, UNIDOSUS, and VAMOS4PR,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Florida; and KIM A. BARTON, in her official capacity as Alachua County Supervisor of Elections, on behalf of herself and similarly-situated County Supervisors of Elections, DEFENDANTS.

Available here: 1.18 cv 00152-MW-GRJ Rivera Madera et al v. DETZNER et al Complaint.

 

Latest Research: “Revisiting Majority-Minority Districts and Black Representation” in PRQ

Available here

And here’s the key figure:

“Figure 4 plots the probability a district elects a black lawmaker in the Deep South (left panel) versus the Rim South (right panel) depending on the size of a district’s black population. This figure shows that, in each of the election periods we include, black legislators are elected with smaller black populations in the Rim South relative to the Deep South. This figure does not contain the same probability for districts in the Non-South because, as the coefficients imply, the differences are larger still. In 1993–1995, the probability that a district elects a black lawmaker reaches 0.5 (an even chance) when the black population is between 54 percent and 55 percent in the Deep South. In that same period, the probability a district elects a black legislator reaches 0.5 when the black population is between 49 percent and 50 percent in the Rim South. This 5 percentage-point difference nearly doubles n 2003–2005 (52% to 53% for the Deep South versus 43 percent to 44 percent for the Rim South) and in 2013–2015 (48% to 49% for the Deep South versus 40% to 41% for the Rim South).11 An additional trend this figure reveals is that, in each region, the threshold required to elect a black legislator declined between 1993–1995 and 2013–2015.”

Looking forward to FSU Law Review special issue on Voting Rights. Here’s Michael Herron & my take on NC’s VIVA

RACE, SHELBY COUNTY, AND THE VOTER INFORMATION VERIFICATION ACT IN NORTH CAROLINA*

MICHAEL C. HERRON & DANIEL A. SMITH

ABSTRACT
Shortly after the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder struck down section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the State of North Carolina enacted an omnibus piece of election-reform legislation known as the Voter Information Verification Act (VIVA). Prior to Shelby, portions of North Carolina were covered jurisdictions per the VRA’s sections 4 and 5—meaning that they had to seek federal preclearance for changes to their election procedures—and this motivates our assessment of whether VIVA’s many alterations to North Carolina’s election procedures are race-neutral. We show that in presidential elections in North Carolina black early voters have cast their ballots disproportionately in the first week of early voting, which was eliminated by VIVA; that blacks disproportionately have registered to vote during early voting and in the immediate run-up to Election Day, something VIVA now prohibits; that registered voters in the state who lack two VIVA-acceptable forms of voter identification, driver’s licenses and non-operator identification cards, are disproportionately black; that VIVA’s identification dispensation for voters at least seventy years old disproportionately benefits white registered voters; and, that preregistered sixteen and seventeen year old voters in North Carolina, a category of registrants that VIVA prohibits, are disproportionately black. These results illustrate how VIVA will have a disparate effect on black voters in North Carolina.

Here’s a link to the pre-publication

Congressman John Lewis discussing the Voting Rights Act at the University of Florida

Race, Shelby County, and the Voter Information Verification Act in North Carolina

Michael Herron and I have posted this draft for the March symposium on voting rights for the Florida State University Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

Shortly after the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the state of North Carolina enacted an omnibus piece of election-reform legislation known as the Voter Information Verification Act (VIVA). Prior to Shelby portions of North Carolina were covered jurisdictions per the VRA’s Sections 4 and 5—meaning that they had to seek federal preclearance for changes to their election procedures—and this motivates our assessment of whether VIVA’s many alterations to North Carolina’s election procedures are race-neutral. We show that in presidential elections in North Carolina black early voters have cast their ballots disproportionately in the first week of early voting, which was eliminated by VIVA; that blacks disproportionately have registered to vote during early voting and in the immediate run-up to Election Day, something VIVA now prohibits; that registered voters in the state who lack two VIVA-acceptable forms of voter identification, driver’s licenses and non-operator identification cards, are disproportionately black; that VIVA’s identification dispensation for voters at least 70 years disproportionately benefits white registered voters; and, that preregistered sixteen and seventeen year old voters in North Carolina, a category of registrants that VIVA prohibits, are disproportionately black. These results illustrate how VIVA will have a disparate effect on black voters in North Carolina.