How did Heavily Haitian Precincts in Florida Vote in the 2016 General Election? (Let’s just say, I expect Trumpian Ron DeSantis to do even worse than Trump.)

The precincts below have at least 100 Hatian-born naturalized citizens who voted in the 2016 General Election, and at least 50% of those who turned out in the precinct are black (according to the statewide voter file). Most of these heavily Haitian precincts are in Miami-Dade County, but several others are in Palm Beach and Broward counties. There are even a couple in Orange County. Despite having druthers over (or downright anger towards) the Clinton Foundation and its overt meddling over the years in Haitian elections and ineffective disaster relief, every one of these heavily Haitian precincts went heavily for Hillary, most with well above 80% of the two-party vote.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis’ comment, that Florida shouldn’t “monkey this up” by electing Democrat nominee, Andrew Gillum, only adds to the pile President Trump started when he referred to Haiti and some African nations as “shithole countries.”

Haiti 2016 precinct vote

How did Trump do among Cuban-born voters in Florida?

The following analysis comes from an extensive database my team and I have put together. It combines individual-level information of Florida voters (including where they were born) with precinct-level results.

The following graph plots precinct-level results. The size of the precincts are scaled to the total votes cast in a precinct in the 2016 General Election.  The Y-Axis is vote two-party share for Trump and Clinton. The X-Axis is the proportion of Hispanic voters in the precinct who are Cuban-born. Each precinct has at least 100 Cuban-born voters and at least 50% of voters were Hispanic.

As the LOWESS curves reveal, as the share of voters who are Cuban-born Hispanics increases, Trump’s share of the two-party vote steadily increases, intersecting with Clinton’s share of the vote around 42 percent of Cuban-born Hispanics, but then peaking at roughly 55 percent of the vote when the proportion of Cuban-born Hispanic voters reaches roughly 50 percent.

Although Trump won more than 60 percent of the two-party vote in a handful of these majority Hispanic precincts with a prevalence of Cuban-born voters, in Miami-Dade Precinct 335 (Hialeah), where 60 percent of the Hispanics who cast ballots were Cuban-born, Trump won less than 45 percent of the two-party vote.

Cuban Vote for Trump Precinct PNG

 

Now Available for (free) Download: “Race, Shelby County, and the Voter Information Verification Act in North Carolina”

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

Florida State University Law Review

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 elec-tion-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 proce-dures—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.

Download here: