Did Changes to the Voting Rights Act Cause Electoral Backsliding in the States?

When announced in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder decision immediately raised concerns that its invalidation of the coverage formula stipulated in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act would foster voter suppression and other antidemocratic practices in jurisdictions subject to preclearance protections. Over a decade after this decision, I put these claims to the test. Using a synthetic difference-in-difference design and the State Democracy Index, a holistic measurement model that provides state-level estimates of electoral democracy from 2000 to 2018, I examine whether changes in state-level electoral democracy may have led to electoral backsliding in formerly fully and partially covered states in the years following the Court’s decision. Ultimately, I find no evidence that electoral backsliding occurred in these jurisdictions in subsequent years. I conclude by discussing the significance of this finding and offering directions for future study.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Election Law Journal Rules Politics and Policy
Published
2024-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2023.0052
Primary Topic
Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Did Changes to the Voting Rights Act Cause Electoral Backsliding in the States?

Alice Malmberg
Election Law Journal Rules Politics and Policy
Electoral Systems and Political Participation
article

Did Changes to the Voting Rights Act Cause Electoral Backsliding in the States?

Alice Malmberg
article en

Abstract

When announced in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder decision immediately raised concerns that its invalidation of the coverage formula stipulated in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act would foster voter suppression and other antidemocratic practices in jurisdictions subject to preclearance protections. Over a decade after this decision, I put these claims to the test. Using a synthetic difference-in-difference design and the State Democracy Index, a holistic measurement model that provides state-level estimates of electoral democracy from 2000 to 2018, I examine whether changes in state-level electoral democracy may have led to electoral backsliding in formerly fully and partially covered states in the years following the Court’s decision. Ultimately, I find no evidence that electoral backsliding occurred in these jurisdictions in subsequent years. I conclude by discussing the significance of this finding and offering directions for future study.

Election Law Journal Rules Politics and PolicyVol. 24(3)
University of California, Davis (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Electoral Systems and Political Participation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.