Bositis Re Segregation in Southern Politics

8/3/2019 Bositis Re Segregation in Southern Politics

1/8

ReseaRch BRief

Rsrn n Srn Plcs?DaviD a. BoSitiS, Ph.D.

NovemBeR 2011

CiviC eNgagemeNt aND goveRNaNCe iNStitute

Rsarch empowrmnt engagmnt

IntroductIon

Following the election o President Barack Obama, many

political observers especially conservative ones

suggested that the United States is now a post-racial

society. Three years later, in the region o the country where

most Arican Americans live, the South, there is strong

statistical evidence that politics is resegregating, with

Arican Americans once again excluded rom power and

representation. Black voters and elected ocials have less

infuence now than at any time since the civil rights era.

And since conservative whites control all the power in the

region, they are enacting legislation both neglectul o the

needs o Arican Americans and other communities o color

(in health care, in education, in criminal justice policy) as

well as outright hostile to them, as in the assault on voting

rights through photo identication laws and other means.

The racially polarized voting that denes much o southern

politics at this time, is in certain ways recreating the

segregated system o the Old South, albeit a de facto

system with minimal violence rather than the de jure system

o beore. I the political parties in the South are now asubstitute or racial labels, then black aspirations there will

continue to be limited. All this is reminiscent o the white

primaries and poll taxes o days gone by.

In most southern states, the 46 year transition rom a

multiracial Democratic political dominance to a white

conservative Republican political dominance is almost

complete. At the heart o this transition is racially polarized

voting. Black state legislators, generally elected in black

majority districts and long used to being in a majority

coalition, are now almost entirely isolated in the minority.

Republicans likewise dominate the statewide political

oces in these states. Virtually all black elected ocials in

the region are outsiders looking in.

This was not always the case. The period between 1976

and 1992 was characterized by both racially polarized

elections and those in which there was a air degree o

black-white agreement. In the 1976 election, Jimmy Carter

carried all the southern states save Virginia and the voting

pattern in the South did not show much racial polarization.

Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992 and carried our

southern states, including two in the Deep South. However

unlike Carter in 1976, Clintons victories in Georgia and

Louisiana were largely due to strong black support, but also

some meaningul white support. During this period there

were many U.S. Senators and Governors in the South who

were elected by genuinely multiracial coalitions o voters.

The current status quo in southern politics began to

take shape in the wave election o 1994, when at the

ederal level and in most statewide constitutional oce

elections white and black voters no longer voted alike

and a predominantly white and conservative Republican

party became ascendant in the South. However, despite

these changes, a multiracial coalition o white and black

Democratic state legislators managed to continue to work

together, and Arican Americans were able to maintain a

meaningul role in southern state politics.


2/8

2 Joint Center for PolitiCal and eConomiC StudieS - reSearCh Brief: reSegregation in Southern PolitiCS?

Southern State LegISLatureS

It is important to remember that a majority o black state

representatives and senators in the U.S. are in the southern

state legislatures, and that this is a refection o the act the

majority o the Arican American population in the country

lives in the South. Also, o the 318 black state legislators

in the South, only three are Republicans, none o whom

represents a majority black constituency. The number and

status o black state senators and representatives or all 50

states can be ound in Appendices A and B.

From Post-Reconstruction to the 1990s, the Republicans

never controlled any southern state legislative body

except the Tennessee House, which they briefy controlled

ollowing the 1968 election. However, throughout

the 1980s the Republicans in several southern states

began narrowing that gap, and the 1992 elections were

important to achieving their goals, as they were the rst

ater the 1990 redistricting, when black majority districts

had to be created due to the 1982 revisions to the

Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling in

Thornburg v. Gingles.

When southern Democrats in the Old South rst engaged

in diluting black votes (i.e. splitting them among multiple

districts), their aim was to diminish black infuence.

However, as southern whites began voting more

Republican, the Democrats ound themselves having to rely

on black votes to remain in oce, and growing numbers

o them accepted the goals o the civil rights movement

and became national Democrats. Accordingly, the

purpose o black vote dilution evolved rom thwarting black

political aspirations to protecting white Democrats and

Democratic majorities. On the other side, the Republicans

actually encouraged the creation o black districts because

they believed the bleaching process that occurred in

districts surrounding black majority districts would open up

opportunities or them. They supported black districts not

to increase black infuence but to win legislative majorities

or themselves.

The Republicans rst victories came with their landslide in

1994, when they gained majorities in Florida state senate

and the North and South Carolina lower houses [Table 1].

However, even ollowing those victories, most black state

legislators in the South continued to serve in the majority;

prior to the 1994 elections, 99.5 percent o black state

legislators there served in the majority and ater 1994, and

91.0 percent served in the majority.

While the Democrats eventually regained control in

North Carolina in 1996, the Republicans gained control

o the Florida house and or the rst time controlled a

southern state legislature. In 1999, the GOP won control

o the Virginia legislature, and between 2000 and 2002,

they gained controlled o the state legislatures in South

Carolina and Texas. The Republicans gained control o

the Georgia state senate in 2002 and the state house in

2004; Tennessees state senate went Republican or therst time in 2004.

While these changes were signicant, up until 2010 as

many as hal o all southern black state legislators still

served in majority coalitions. However, ollowing the 2010

elections and the 2011 elections in Mississippi and Virginia,

black state legislators now have minority legislative status

everywhere in the South save Arkansas. Prior to the 2010

elections, 50.5 percent o black state legislators in the

South served in the majority and 49.5 percent served in the

minority. Following the 2011 elections, only 4.8 percent oblack state legislators in the South serve in the majority, and

95.2 percent serve in the minority [Table 1].

This is a status unique to the South. A majority o black

state legislators serving in legislative bodies outside o the

South serve in the majority [Table 2]. In act, more than 10

times as many black legislators outside the South serve in

the majority compared to their southern counterparts, 162

versus 15, or 54.4 percent versus 4.8 percent.

State legislative parties are now increasingly dened by

racial composition. All Republican state legislative caucusesare predominantly white, while an increasing number

o southern Democratic state legislative caucuses are

majority black [Table 3]. This begs the question, what is

the purpose o having a legislative black caucus when the

majority o members in your legislative body are black?

A majority o Democrats in both chambers in Alabama,

Georgia and Mississippi are Arican Americans. Arican

Americans are also at least 50 percent o Democratic

members in the Florida senate and South Carolina house,

and more than 45 percent in the Florida house, and the

North and South Carolina senate. In hal o the southernstate legislative chambers, black members are a majority or

near majority o Democratic members. These proportions

are o course not commensurate with the black populations

o these states; Floridas population is only 16 percent

Arican American, but close to hal the Democratic

members o their legislature are black.


3/8

Joint Center for PolitiCal and eConomiC StudieS - reSearCh Brief: reSegregation in Southern PolitiCS? 3

Some o the southern status quo may be transient

especially given the rapidly changing demographics o

many southern states. Looking at the 2010 U.S. Census

gures or a ew key states shows the signicance o the

changes taking place. Texas is now a majority-minority

state, and between 2000 and 2010, the Hispanic

population there increased by 42 percent and the Arican

American population by 24 percent. Floridas Hispanic

population increased by 57 percent, and its AricanAmerican population by 28 percent. Georgias small

Hispanic population almost doubled, but more important,

its large Arican American population increased by about 26

percent. Non-Hispanic whites are now a smaller proportion

o Georgias population than is the case in Florida. Some o

the present status may be due to transient political actors

such as the poor state o the economy in 2010 and 2011.

However, looking more closely at the root cause o these

changesracially polarized voting, and especially extreme

racially polarized voting suggest that in many southernstates this resegregation o politics is not transient [Table 3].

Looking at the 2008 Presidential election exit polls, it is

clear that the degree o racially polarized voting is much

less in the states won by President Obama; 42 percent o

whites voted or Obama in Florida, 39 percent in Virginia

and 35 percent in North Carolina. However, in Alabama

(10 percent), Mississippi (11 percent), and Louisiana (14

percent), the extent o racial polarization was extreme, and

suggests that no transient actors are at work.

coda

The data on the status o black state legislators

and by extension black citizensin the South is

disturbing. A resegregation in politics has taken

place. The achievement o complete power at the

state level by people who support policies and

actions that Arican Americans oppose means that

or the near uture that legislation and budgeting in

the South is unlikely to be aimed at helping Arican

Americans no matter how bad their unemployment

levels, how poor their schools and dropout rates,

and no matter how bad their health disparities.

Those with power have also sought to push urther

into the uture any relie or redress by making more

dicult or black voices to be heard at polls.

Demographic changes occurring daily are making

the South a dierent place. However, these changes

have not maniested themselves in politics yet, and

a whole lot o poor people, Arican Americans,

and Hispanics are going to have to wait to see an

improvement in their lives.

Pre-and-Post 1994 Midterm Elections Pre-and-Post 2010 Midterm Elections

Pre-1994 Midterms Post-1994 Midterms Pre-2010 Midterms Post-2010 Midterms

Status withinLegislature

StateHouse(N)(%)

StateSenate(N)(%)

Total(N)(%)

StateHouse(N)(%)

StateSenate(N)(%)

Total(N)(%)

StateHouse(N)(%)

StateSenate(N)(%)

Total(N)(%)

StateHouse(N)(%)

StateSenate(N)(%)

Total(N)(%)

Majority 15899.3

43100.0

20199.5

17481.7

6191.0

23483.9

11747.8

4758.8

16450.5

114.5

45.6

154.8

Minority 10.7

00.0

10.5

3918.3

69.0

4616.1

12852.2

3341.2

16149.5

23195.5

6794.4

29895.2

Total 159 43 202 213 67 280 245 80 325 242 71 313

taBle 1. StatuS of BlaCk State legiSlatorS, Southern StateSPre-and-PoSt 1994 and 2010 midterm eleCtionS1

Sources: The inormation and analysis rom 1994 is rom Redistricting and Representation: The Creation o Majority-Minority Districts and the Evolving PartySystem in the South (1995) by David A. Bositis. The inormation and analysis or 2010 is rom the NCLS and the Joint Center or Political and EconomicStudies. 1. Includes the Virginia and Mississippi elections o 2011. Note: the Virginia State Senate isd split.


4/8


Pre-2010 Elections Post-2010 Midterm Elections

Nonsouthern States Southern States Nonsouthern States Southern States

Status within

Legislature

State

House(N)(%)

State

Senate(N)(%)

Total

(N)(%)

State

House(N)(%)

State

Senate(N)(%)

Total

(N)(%)

State

House(N)(%)

State

Senate(N)(%)

Total

(N)(%)

State

House(N)(%)

State

Senate(N)(%)

Total

(N)(%)

Majority 19586.7

4864.0

24381.0

11747.8

4758.8

16450.5

13057.5

3244.4

16254.4

114.5

45.6

154.8

Minority 3013.3

2736.0

5719.0

12852.2

3341.2

16149.5

9642.5

4055.6

13645.6

23195.5

6794.4

26195.2

Total 225 75 300 245 80 325 226 72 298 242 76 318

taBle 2. StatuS of Southern and nonSouthern BlaCk State legiSlatorSPre-and-PoSt 2010 midterm eleCtionS1

Sources: The inormation and analysis rom 1994 is rom Redistricting and Representation: The Creation o Majority-Minority Districts and the Evolving Party

System in the South (1995) by David A. Bositis. The inormation and analysis or 2010 is rom the NCLS and the Joint Center or Political and EconomicStudies. 1. Includes the 2011 elections in Mississippi and Virginia. Note: The Virginia State Senate is split.

StateBlack

Population(%)

Democratic LegislatorsWho are Black

(%)

2008 DemocraticVote for President

(%)

2010 Democratic Vote

U.S. Senator(%)

Governor(%)

State Senate State House White Black White Black White Black

Alabama 26.2 58.3 65.0 10 98 - - - -

Arkansas 15.4 20 16.4 30 95 31 80 62 90

Florida 16.0 50 46.2 42 96 12 74 41 93

Georgia 30.9 65 66.7 23 98 - - - -

Louisiana 32.0 42.1 40.4 14 94 22 86 - -

Mississippi 37.0 54.5 63.8 11 98 - - - -

North Carolina 21.5 47.4 34.6 35 95 - - - -

South Carolina 27.9 47.4 58.3 26 96 9 80 29 94

Tennessee 16.7 23.1 44.1 34 94 - - - -

Texas 11.8 16.7 30.6 26 98 - - 29 88

Virginia 19.4 25 40.6 39 92 - - - -

taBle 3. raCial Polarization in Southern eleCtionS and legiSlatureS


5/8


2010 2011

Total Black Representatives Total Black Representatives

State Total Dem Rep Dem Rep Serve inMajority

Serve inMinority

Dem Rep Dem Rep Serve inMajority

Serve inMinority

*AL 105 60 45 26 - 26 - 40 65 26 - - 26

AK 40 18 22 - - - - 16 24 - - - -

AZ 60 25 35 1 - - 1 20 40 - - - -AR 100 72 28 10 - 10 - 55 45 9 - 9 -

CA 80 49 29 6 - 6 - 52 28 6 - 6 -

*CO 65 37 27 1 - 1 1 32 33 2 - - 2

CT 151 114 36 11 - 11 1 100 51 9 - 9 -

DE 41 24 17 3 1 3 1 26 15 3 1 1 3

FL 120 43 76 18 1 1 18 39 81 18 - - 18

GA 180 74 105 40 2 2 40 63 115 42 1 1 42

HI 51 45 6 - - - - 43 8 - - - -

ID 70 18 52 - - - - 13 57 1 - - 1

IL 118 70 48 19 - 19 - 64 54 20 - 20 -

*IN 100 52 48 7 - 7 - 40 59 8 - - 8

*IA 100 56 44 6 - 6 - 40 60 5 - - 5

KS 125 49 76 5 - - 5 33 92 5 - - 5

KY 100 64 35 6 - 6 - 59 41 7 - 7 -

*LA 105 52 50 20 - 20 - 47 55 19 - - 19

*ME 151 95 55 - - - - 72 78 - - - -

MD 141 104 36 32 - 32 - 98 43 34 - 34 -

MA 160 144 16 6 - 6 - 128 32 6 - 6 -

*MI 110 66 43 14 2 14 2 47 63 15 1 1 15

*MN 134 87 47 2 - 2 - 62 72 2 - - 2

#MS 122 72 50 37 - 37 - 58 60 37 - - 37

MO 163 73 89 16 - - 16 54 105 14 - - 14

*MT 100 50 50 - - - - 32 68 - - - -

NE n/a

NV 42 28 14 4 - 4 - 26 16 5 - 5 -

*NH 400 222 176 4 - 4 - 104 293 2 - - 2

NJ 80 47 33 11 - 11 - 47 33 11 - 11 -

NM 70 45 25 1 1 1 1 36 33 1 1 1 1

NY 150 107 43 22 - 22 - 99 51 21 - 21 -

*NC 120 68 52 20 - 20 - 52 67 18 - - 18

ND 94 36 58 - - - - 25 69 - - - -

*OH 99 53 46 12 - 12 - 40 59 12 - - 12

OK 101 40 61 3 1 1 3 31 69 3 1 1 3

OR 60 36 24 - - - - 30 30 - - - -

*PA 203 103 97 16 - 16 - 91 112 16 - - 16

RI 75 69 6 3 - 3 - 65 10 2 - 2 -

SC 124 51 73 28 1 1 28 48 75 28 - - 28

SD 70 24 46 - - - - 19 50 - - - -

TN 99 48 50 15 - - 15 34 64 15 - - 15

Continued on page 6

aPPendix a. PartiSan StatuS of BlaCk State rePreSentativeS, 2010 and 2011


6/8


2010 2011



Serve inMinority


Serve inMinority

TX 150 73 77 14 - - 14 49 101 15 2 2 15

UT 75 22 53 - - - - 17 58 - - - -

VT 150 95 48 - - - - 94 48 - - - -VA 100 39 59 13 - - 13 32 66 13 - - 13

WA 98 62 36 1 - 1 - 56 42 1 - 1 -

WV 100 71 29 2 - 2 - 65 35 3 - 3 -

*WI 99 52 46 6 - 6 - 39 59 6 - - 6

WY 60 19 41 - - - - 10 50 1 - - 1

(N) 5411 3023 2356 461 9 312 158 2442 2934 461 7 141 327

(%) 100 55.7 44.3 66.4 33.6 45.4 54.6 98.5 1.5 30.1 69.9

Sources: NCSL, Joint Center or Political and Economic Studies; = Indicates even split; * Indicates states where partisan control shited. # Mississippi Houseshited control in November 2011

2010 2011

Total Black Senators Total Black Senators


Serve inMinority


Serve inMinority

*AL 35 20 15 8 - 8 - 12 22 7 - - 7

AK 20 10 10 1 - = = 10 10 1 - = =

AZ 30 12 18 1 - - 1 9 21 1 - - 1

AR 35 27 8 4 - 4 - 20 15 4 - 4 -

CA 40 25 14 2 - 2 - 25 15 2 - 2 -

CO 35 21 14 1 - 1 - 20 15 - - - -

CT 36 24 12 3 - 3 - 22 14 3 - 3 -

DE 21 15 6 1 - 1 - 14 7 1 - 1 -

FL 40 14 26 7 - - 7 12 28 6 - - 6

GA 56 21 35 12 - - 12 20 36 13 - - 13

HI 25 23 2 - - - - 24 1 - - - -

ID 35 7 28 - - - - 7 28 - - - -

IL 59 37 22 9 - 9 - 35 24 10 - 10 -

IN 50 17 33 4 - - 4 13 37 4 - - 4

IA 50 32 18 - - - - 26 24 - - - -

KS 40 9 31 2 - - 2 8 32 2 - - 2KY 38 17 20 1 - - 1 15 22 1 - - 1

*LA 39 23 16 8 - 8 - 19 20 8 - - 8

*ME 35 20 15 - - - - 14 20 - - - -

MD 47 33 14 10 - 10 - 35 12 9 - 9 -

MA 40 34 6 - - - - 36 4 - - - -

MI 38 16 22 5 1 1 5 12 26 5 1 1 5

*MN 67 46 21 - - - - 30 37 - - - -

*MS 52 27 25 13 - 13 - 22 28 12 - - 12

MO 34 11 23 3 - - 3 8 26 3 - - 3

aPPendix B. PartiSan StatuS of BlaCk State SenatorS, 2010 and 2011

aPPendix a. PartiSan StatuS of BlaCk State rePreSentativeS, 2010 and 2011 (Continued)


7/8


2010 2011



Serve inMinority


Serve inMinority

MT 50 23 27 - - - - 22 28 - - - -

NE 49 * * 2 2

NV 21 12 8 2 1 2 1 11 10 1 - 1 -*NH 24 14 10 - - - - 5 19 - - - -

NJ 40 23 17 4 - 4 - 24 16 4 - 4 -

NM 42 27 15 - - - - 27 15 - - - -

*NY 62 32 29 10 - 10 - 30 32 9 - - 9

*NC 50 30 20 9 - 9 - 19 31 7 - - 7

ND 47 21 26 - - - - 12 35 - - - -

OH 33 12 21 5 - - 5 10 23 5 - - 5

OK 48 22 26 2 - - 2 16 32 2 - - 2

OR 30 18 12 1 1 1 1 16 14 - 1 - 1

PA 50 20 30 2 - - 2 20 30 4 - - 4

RI 38 33 4 1 - 1 - 29 8 1 - 1 -

SC 46 19 27 9 - - 9 19 27 9 - - 9

SD 35 14 21 - - - - 5 30 - - - -

TN 33 14 19 3 - - 3 13 20 3 - - 3

TX 31 12 19 2 - - 2 12 19 2 - - 2

UT 29 8 21 - - - - 7 22 - - - -

VT 30 22 7 - - - - 22 8 - 1 - 1

#VA 40 22 18 5 - 5 - 20 20 5 - = =

WA 49 31 18 1 - 1 - 27 22 - - - -

WV 34 26 8 - - - - 28 6 - - - -

*WI 33 18 15 2 - 2 - 16 17 2 - - 2

WY 30 7 23 - - - - 4 26 - - - -

(N) 1971 1020 893 153 3 95 60 882 1034 146 3 36 102

(%) 100 51.8 48.2 61.3 38.7 46 54 98 2 25.2 74.8

Sources: NCSL, Joint Center or Political and Economic Studies; = Indicates even split; * Indicates states where partisan control shited. # Following the 2011elections, the Virginia State Senate is split.

aPPendix B. PartiSan StatuS of BlaCk State SenatorS, 2010 and 2011 (Continued)

Opinions expressed in Joint Center publications are those o the authors and do not necessarily refect the views o the ocers representing the Board oGovernors o the Joint Center or the organizations supporting the Joint Center and its research and policy analysis.

2011 by the Joint Center or Political and Economic Studies

All rights reserved.Printed in the United States


8/8

Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies

1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 1100 | Washington, DC 20005 | www.jointcenter.org

aboutthe author

Dr. David A. Bositis (BA, Northwestern, MA, PhD, Southern

Illinois University), who has been at the Joint Center since

1990, is the author, co-author or editor o six books,

includingVoting Rights and Minority Representation;

in addition, he has authored eleven monographs, and

numerous scholarly articles, analyses, and reports, mostrecently, Opinion o Arican Americans on Climate

Change and the 2010 Midterm Elections: The View rom

Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, and South Carolina; Blacks

and the 2008 Elections: A Preliminary Analysis; National

Survey o Arican Americans on Climate Change and

Conservation; 2008 National Survey o Arican American

Families Views on Education,; the 2008 National Opinion

Poll: Politics; Black Political Power in the New Century;

in The Black Metropolis in the Twenty-First Century: Race,

Power, and the Politics o Place, edited by Robert D.

Bullard; and The Impact o the Core Voting Rights Act onVoting and Oceholding in The Voting Rights Act (CQ

Press), edited by Richard Valelly. Dr. Bositis has written

many OP-Ed pieces or the New York Times, the Los

Angeles Times, and other leading newspapers. Dr. Bositis

has taught political science and sociology at the George

Washington University and SUNY-Potsdam. A voting rights

and redistricting expert, he has published widely in this

area, and has appeared as an expert witness in both state

and ederal court. Dr. Bositis worked with the late Judge

A. Leon Higgenbotham, Jr. in deending majority-minority

districts ollowing the U.S. Supreme Courts Shaw v. Renodecision. Dr. Bositis research was cited by Justice Stevens

in the Bush v. Vera case.

Dr. Bositis is also a scholar and theorist o political parties

and representation and has written extensively on those

topics, including the Congressional Black Caucus. Since

1992, he has written the popular monograph series, Blacks

and the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

In 2000, the U.S. State Department sent Dr. Bositis to

Tanzania, Zanzibar, Zambia, and South Arica to speak

on issues o representation. Dr. Bositis traveled to Benin

several times in the mid-1990s to provide training and towork with NGOs that were conducting presidential election

studies. He is is also a scholar o black politics and voting,

and the Joint Center has published his election analyses

ollowing each national election since 1992. Since 1997,

Dr. Bositis has also been the author o the Joint Center

series on black elected ocials entitled Black Elected

Ocials: A Statistical Analysis.

aboutthe JoInt center

The Joint Center or Political and Economic Studies is

the nations leading public policy and research institution

ocusing on issues o concern to Arican Americans and

other communities o color. Founded in 1970 in wake o

the Voting Rights Acts passage, the Joint Center plays a

key role in encouraging civic and political participation

in the Arican American community and strengthening

the leadership skills o black elected ocials. Through

its scholarly research, distinctive analyses o issues and

convening o orums and networking opportunities, the

Joint Center helps guide the policy process toward practicasolutions on Americas most challenging issuesand

toward a better uture or all Americans.

Bositis Re Segregation in Southern Politics

Documents

Transcript of Bositis Re Segregation in Southern Politics