Shelby County v. Holder and Changes in Voting Behavior

Salvatore M. De Rienzo

The American Economist, 2022, vol. 67, issue 2, 195-210

Abstract: In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required jurisdictions with histories of voter disenfranchisement to receive federal preclearance before altering voting laws. Since Shelby , 1688 polling sites across 13 states have closed. Utilizing a sample of eligible voters from the Current Population Survey, I first predict the likelihood of voting. Then, I analyze how Shelby has influenced the likelihood of ballot box access issues among non-voters. Overall voter turnout is 0.9pp lower in post- Shelby elections. Black eligible voters are 5.4pp less likely to vote after Shelby . However, Shelby is not associated with a higher likelihood of ballot box access issues. While the mechanisms through which Shelby affects voting behavior remain inconclusive, Shelby is significantly associated with widespread voter disenfranchisement. These findings are relevant for policymakers in creating a revised preclearance formula to curb voter disenfranchisement.

Keywords: voting; voter; elections; law; rights; race (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/05694345221101133 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:amerec:v:67:y:2022:i:2:p:195-210

DOI: 10.1177/05694345221101133

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The American Economist from Sage Publications
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().