When I was looking in the
New York Times at VRA coverage before
Shelby County v Holder, which ruled that pre-existing coverage formulas were unconstitutional, I have wondered whether it would be possible, as the
Times suggested
here, to redefine coverage based on
having lost the most voting discrimination lawsuits.
Of all the options suggested by the
Times, this seems to me to be clearly the most logical, as it reflects both local popular interest (low turnout could mean people are not interested) and actual discrimination.
If we follow the map and assume the figures have not substantially changed, we can see:
- that Alaska, Georgia, South Carolina, most of Virginia and Texas, plus covered areas of California and Florida would be bailed out under a new formula
- potential areas in Montana, Arkansas and the Delmarva Peninsula that were not covered in the 1960s (and had no literacy tests) where discrimination is significant
Would this be a sensible policy for the Democrats in 2020 and beyond?
