Jesse H Rhodes

Ballot Blocked

The Political Erosion of the Voting Rights ACT

• Broschiertes Buch

Produktbeschreibung

Jesse H. Rhodes is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He is the author of An Education in Politics: The Origins and Evolution of No Child Left Behind (2012).

---

Hinweis: Dieser Artikel kann nur an eine deutsche Lieferadresse ausgeliefert werden.

Produktdetails

• Verlag: Stanford University Press
• Seitenzahl: 280
• Erscheinungstermin: 12. September 2017
• Englisch
• Abmessung: 226mm x 152mm x 18mm
• Gewicht: 386g
• ISBN-13: 9781503603516
• ISBN-10: 1503603512
• Artikelnr.: 47769361

Autorenporträt

Jesse H. Rhodes is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He is the author of An Education in Politics: The Origins and Evolution of No Child Left Behind (2012).

Inhaltsangabe

Contents and Abstracts
Introduction: Explaining the Puzzling Evolution of the Voting Rights Act
chapter abstract
This chapter lays out the main arguments of the book. It contends that the
divergent trajectories of legislation, administration, and judicial
interpretation in voting rights policy making derive largely from efforts
by conservative politicians to narrow the scope of federal enforcement
while at the same time preserving their public reputation of support for
racial equality and minority voting rights. Conservatives reconciled these
conflicting imperatives by adopting a strategy in which they would
acquiesce to expansive voting rights protections in Congress, where
decisions were highly visible, easily traceable, and open to contestation
by civil rights activists, but at the same time work to narrow the scope of
federal enforcement via administrative maneuvers and judicial appointments,
where choices were less visible, harder to trace, and less open to
political challenge.
1Liberal Ascendance and Enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
chapter abstract
This chapter provides a history and explanation of the enactment of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, focusing on three factors that provide key
explanatory leverage: rising frustration with the poor performance of
existing voting rights protections, emergence of a powerful civil rights
movement capable of dramatizing voting rights abuses and pressuring members
of Congress and the president, and ascendance of a dominant liberal
coalition capable of driving effective voting rights legislation through
Congress. Early implementation and judicial interpretation of the statute
are also discussed, with a focus on how these dynamics introduced new
tensions in the Act that could not have been anticipated at the time of its
enactment.
2Conservative Backlash and Partisan Struggle over Voting Rights, 1968-1980
chapter abstract
This chapter shows that Richard Nixon pioneered the strategy that would
become central to Republican activity in relation to voting rights issues.
Although Nixon desired to limit the scope of voting rights enforcement for
both ideological and constituency reasons, in the end great anxiety about
the negative electoral repercussions of weakening the VRA through
legislation led him to acquiesce to an expansive reauthorization of the
Act. At the same time, though, Nixon used administrative maneuvers and
judicial appointments to check the scope of federal enforcement and thereby
serve both ideological goals and core constituency demands. Because of his
actions, the text, administrative enforcement, and judicial interpretation
of the Act began to move in very different directions.
3The Growing Struggle over Voting Rights in the 1980s and 1990s
chapter abstract
This chapter explains the growing gulf between the expansive text,
increasingly fragmented administration, and increasingly conservative
judicial interpretation of the VRA. This development is attributable to
efforts by the Reagan administration (and, to a lesser extent, the George
H. W. Bush administration) to simultaneously limit the scope of federal
voting rights enforcement and maintain the appearance of support for the
norm of racial equality. The president and his congressional allies
acquiesced to an expansive reauthorization of the Act so as to avoid
alienating people of color and moderate whites going into the 1982
elections. Yet, at the same time, conservatives within the Reagan
administration deliberately pursued an administrative strategy to limit the
scope of federal enforcement. Reagan also selected jurists for positions on
the Supreme Court who were expected to pursue his vision of a "limited
Constitution" in which the Court closely policed federal efforts to expand
minority voting rights.
4Voting Rights Politics in an Era of Conservative Ascendance, 2001-2013
chapter abstract
The George W. Bush administration deliberately politicized voting rights
administration, using unscrupulous methods to discipline and muzzle
dissident staff, promote ideologically congruous attorneys, and enshrine
conservative decisions in law. Additionally, Bush deliberately selected
jurists with extremely narrow views of voting rights law for positions on
the Supreme Court, ensuring that the Court would move further down the
conservative path it had traversed since the Nixon administration. Yet, at
the same time, the administration endorsed a sweeping reauthorization of
the VRA that expanded legislative guarantees and reauthorized key
provisions for a twenty-five-year period. The discrepancies between
Republicans' administrative/judicial actions and their legislative
behaviors were attributable to the varying visibility, traceability, and
accessibility of politics in these different venues.
5Voting Rights Politics in the Age of Obama, 2009-2016
chapter abstract
This chapter highlights the impact of the Shelby County decision on the
patterning of voting rights policy making, revealing how the decision
altered the political playing field to the advantage of Republican
opponents of muscular federal voting rights enforcement. With its ruling in
Shelby County, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court swept aside
the provision Republicans most vigorously opposed. This new state of
affairs relieved Republicans of the politically fraught burden of
justifying departures from existing voting rights law and allowed them to
exploit their majority status in Congress to obstruct "divisive"
legislation proposed by Democrats. For their part, given the infeasibility
of reestablishing preclearance in a Congress in which Republicans
controlled the House of Representatives-and, after 2014, the Senate as
well-Democrats made the strategic choice to highlight Republican
intransigence as a campaign issue in order to rally support among African
American and Latino constituents.
Conclusion: Partisan Interests, Institutional Conflict, and the Future of
the Voting Rights Struggle
chapter abstract
This chapter reviews the evidence, draws conclusions, and lays out some
preliminary thoughts about the likely future of the voting rights struggle.
Ultimately, it suggests, the right to vote is vulnerable, and its defense
depends on affirmative efforts by civil rights activists, progressives, and
their elected allies at all levels of government.