White Voter Support for Southern Black Congressional Candidates
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2003.24.0.249-265Abstract
In the wake of Miller v. Johnson (1995) which required redrawing of congressional districts in order to conform with the U.S. Constitution, African Americans have begun winning elections in majority-white southern congressional districts. Three hypotheses to account for the increased rates of white voter support are examined. The incumbency hypothesis explains black victories in terms of increased white support which comes in response to the activities of the incumbent. The color blind white hypothesis suggests that white voters are no more likely to reject a black Democrat candidate than a white Democrat. The greater tolerance hypothesis suggests that while African Americans now get larger shares of the white vote than in the past, they still run less well than white Democrats. Evidence from almost 100 congressional elections shows that although greater percentages of the white electorate votes for black candidates than in the past, black Democrats continue to attract smaller shares of the white vote than to white Democrats. This pattern maintains after controlling for incumbency, campaign spending, candidate experience and white partisanship.References
Aistrup, Joseph A. 1996. The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
Beck, Nathaniel. 1995. Reporting Heteroskedasticity Consistent Standard Errors. The Political Methodologist 7:4-6.
Berard, Stanley P., and David Rohde. 1998. What You See Is ... Essentially ... What You Get: House Races in the Contemporary South. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 23-25.
Brace, Kimball, Bernard Grofman and Lisa Handley. 1987. Does Redistricting Aimed to Help Blacks Necessarily Help Republicans? Journal of Politics 49:169-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131139
Brace, Kimball, Bernard Grofman, Lisa R. Handley, and Richard G. Niemi. 1988. Minority Voting Equality: The 65 Percent Rule in Theory and Practice. Law and Policy10:48-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1988.tb00004.x
Bullock, Charles S., III. 1987. Redistricting and Changes in the Partisan and Racial Composition of Southern Legislature. State and Local Government Review 19:62-67.
Bullock, Charles S., III. 1988. Regional Realignment from an Officeholding Perspective. Journal of Politics 50:553-574. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131458
Bullock, Charles S., III. 1996. Racial Composition of District Population and the Election of African-American Legislators. Southeastern Political Review 24:611-628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.1996.tb00100.x
Bullock, Charles S., III, and Richard E. Dunn. 1999. The Demise of Racial Districting and the Future of Black Representation. Emory Law Journal 48:1209-1253.
Bullock, Charles S., III, and Mark J. Rozell. 1998. Southern Politics at the Century's End. In The New Politics of the Old South, ed. Bullock and Rozell. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Burton, Orville Vernon. 1998. Legislative and Congressional Districting in South Carolina. In Race and Redistricting in the 1990s, ed. Bernard Grofman. New York: Agathon.
Cameron, Charles, David Epstein, and Sharyn OíHalloran. 1996. Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Black Substantive Representation in Congress? American Political Science Review 90:794-812. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2945843
Engstrom, Richard L. 1995. Voting Rights Districts: Debunking the Myths. Campaigns and Elections 16:24-46.
Engstrom Richard L. and Jason E. Kirksey. 1998. Race and Representational Districting in Louisiana. In Race and Redistricting in the 1990s, ed. Bernard Grofman. New York: Agathon.
Epstein, David, and Sharyn OíHalloran. 1999. A Social Science Approach to Race, Redistricting, and Representation. American Political Science Review 93:187-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2585770
Fleisher, Richard. 1993. Explaining the Change in Roll-Call Voting Behavior of Southern Democrats. Journal of Politics 55:327-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2132268
Gaddie, Ronald K., and Charles S. Bullock, III. 2000. Election to Open Seats in the U.S. House. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Gay, Claudine. 2001. The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on Political Participation. American Political Science Review 95:589-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055401003021
Hagens, Winnett W. 1998. The Politics of Race: The Virginia Redistricting Experience, 1991-1997. In Race and Redistricting in the 1990s, ed. Bernard Grofman. New York: Agathon.
Hajnal, Zoltan L. 2001. White Residents, Black Incumbents, and a Declining Racial Divide. American Political Science Review 95:603-617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055401003033
Holmes, Robert A. 1998. Reapportionment Strategies in the 1990s: The Case of Georgia. In Race and Redistricting in the 1990s, ed. Bernard Grofman. New York: Agathon.
Jacobson, Gary C. 1997. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 4th ed. New York: Longman.
King, Gary. 1997. A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Liu, Baodong, and James M. Vanderleeuw. 1999. White-Voter Response to Black Political Power: The Case of New Orleans, 1980-1994. Southeastern Political Review27:175-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.1999.tb00528.x
Loewen, James H. 1982. Testimony published in Extension of the Voting Rights Act. Hearings before the subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, House Judiciary Committee. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Loewen, James H. 1987. Racial Bloc Voting in South Carolina. Unpublished.
Lublin, David. 1997. The Paradox of Representation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lublin, David. 1999. Racial Redistricting and African American Representation: A Critique of 'Do Majority Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?' American Political Science Review 93:183-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2585769
McKinney, Cynthia A. 1996. A Product of the Voting Rights Act. Washington Post (November 26):A15.
Pomper, Gerald M. 1997. The Presidential Election. In The Election of 1996: Reports and Interpretations, ed. Gerald M. Pomper et al. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Tate, Katherine. 1995. Structural Dependence or Group Loyalty? The Black Vote in 1992. In Democracy's Feast: Elections in America, ed. Herbert F. Weisberg. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Thernstrom, Stephan, and Abigail Thernstrom. 1997. America in Black and White. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Vanderleeuw, James M. 1989. The Impact of Race and Incumbency on Voting Behavior and Local Elections. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.
Voss, D. Stephen, and David Lublin. 2001. Black Incumbents, White Districts. American Politics Research 29:141-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X01029002002
Watson, S.M. 1984. The Second Time Around: A Profile of Black Mayoral Election Campaigns. Phylon 45:165-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/274401
White, Halbert. 1980. A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48:817-838. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1912934
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
