Section V is on the ropes

[muon2]

Which professor was "clubbed"? I don't recall that.

Which population measure is used for the differential? Is it CVAP?

Henry Louis Gates

CVAP - it's from the Current Population Survey - which includes voting questions following each even-year November election.

Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2010 - Detailed Tables

Here is an update coverage formula:

If a racial or ethnic minority that constituted 3% or more of the population, had registration or voting in the 2010 election that was 5% or more below that for non-Hispanic whites, it is covered.

States that are not covered:

Southern states where black participation is comparable to white participation.
AL, LA, MS, SC, TN

Midwestern states where black participation is comparable to white participation
IN, MO, OH

State where AIAN participation is comparable to white participation
ND

States with no significant non-white population.
IA, ME, NH, VT

Covered:
AK: B(lack), H(ispanic), AIAN
AZ: B H
AR: B
CA: B H A(sian)
CO: B H
CT: B H
DE: B H
DC: B H
FL: H
GA: H
HI: B H NHAOPI
ID: H AIAN
IL: A H
KS: B H AIAN
KY: B
MD: A H
MA: B A H
MI: B
MN: B
MT: AIAN
NE: H
NV: B A H
NJ: A H
NM: H AIAN
NY: B A H
NC: B H
OK: B H AIAN
OR: H
PA: H
RI: B H
SD: AIAN
TX: B A H
UT: H O(ther)
VA: B A H
WA: B A H O
WV: B
WI: B
WY: H AIAN

Formula used White non-Hispanic alone; Black alone; Asian alone; Hispanic (of any race), so Black Hispanic, and Asian Hispanic are counted in two groups.

The Census Bureau does not break out AIAN, NHAOPI, and Other racial categories.   I subtracted from Total, the White non-Hispanic alone, Black alone, Asian alone, and Hispanic (of any race) to get an "Other" population.  This resulted in a double exclusion of non-White Hispanics (New York ended up with a negative value because of the relatively large number of Puerto Ricans and naturalized Dominicans who also identify as Black.  I generally characterized this population as AIAN: AK AZ ID KS MT NM ND OK SD WY.  HI was classified as NHAOPI, NC as a mixture of AIAN and multi-racial; and NV, UT, and WA as a combination of AIAN and NHAOPI.   Because of the methodology these numbers are statistically unreliable.

So is one outcome that SCOTUS throw out Sect V unless an up-to-date Sect IV is created? If so, Congress could use the table above, but it would seem unlikely with the current divisions.