Disenfranchisement: historical underpinnings and contemporary manifestations.
INTRODUCTIONJustice and democracy are fundamental to American society, at least according to the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights, which argue for the inalienable rights of all 'citizens' (1) to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. In the United States, suffrage is equated to citizenship and citizenship defines membership, decision-making authority, and deservingness. Despite such proclamations, citizenship has been historically conceptualized by what hooks (2013) calls the "imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" framework (p. 4). This phrase represents the multiple systems of oppressions that marginalize minorities (by white supremacy), the poor (by capitalist exploitation), women (by patriarchy), and other groups that do not adhere to the dominant conceptualizations of power. The intersection of race, class, gender, age, and ability reveals a status hierarchy that influences public policy and determines the allocation of benefits and burdens across demographic groups. According to hooks (2013) "This phrase is useful precisely because it does not prioritize one system over another but rather offers us a way to think about the interlocking systems that work together to uphold and maintain cultures of domination" (p. 4). Therefore, the antithesis to white supremacist capitalist patriarchy means to be deemed as "the other" in American society. This designation of "the other" has historically been associated with minorities, women, homosexuals, and the disabled, which has justified their exclusion from full participation in society. Consequently, the dual causality of public policy and social construction reveals an interconnection among these groups (Schriner, 2005).
This paper uses two theories to understand and explain how disenfranchisement becomes socially acceptable based on the negative social construction of perceived dependence. The social construction of target population framework is used to examine the language used to conceptualize Blacks (2), in particular, and minorities in general as unworthy and undeserving of the franchise (Schneider & Ingram, 1993, 1997). A historical overview will highlight the common discourse used to deny suffrage rights to Blacks. Second, critical race theory (CRT) is used to explain the implications of disenfranchisement. Using two core tenets of CRT, colorblind policies and interest convergence, this study offers an interpretation of the effects of disenfranchisement on individuals, communities, and societies. CRT is useful because it not only requires an evaluation of injustice, but also demands a response by stakeholders to mitigate the oppressive influences of discrimination. This paper uses Schneider and Ingram's (1993, 1997) social construction of populations (advantaged versus dependent) to link the positive or negative outcomes that directly relate to extending the franchise to American citizens. Although counterproductive to the ideas of American democracy whereby all people are "created equal," these distinctions are widely accepted and facilitated through the use of colorblind policies (e.g. neutral and nonbiased) and the narrowed self-interest of the existing power structure (e.g. affluent Whites). Ultimately, such distinctions manifest themselves into legislative action either in support for or in opposition to individuals, groups, and problems.
This study seeks to highlight the increasing efforts by state legislatures around the country to marginalize those deemed as "the other" through the enactment of disenfranchisement legislation. Although efforts to marginalize "the other" are not new in American society, the strategies used today are subtle and race-neutral (colorblind), which gives the impression that they are fair and equally impactful for all groups. However, the latest election reform legislation trends reveal that state legislatures are adopting policies that have a racially disproportionate impact on low-income minority groups. These trends are harmful based on their ability to isolate people and whole communities from the decision-making power associated with voting. Therefore, recognition of this disparity is needed in order to educate and empower the public about the implications of disenfranchisement--not only individuals and communities, but for the integrity of our democratic system.
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) Elections Reform database was used to identify disenfranchisement policies enacted by state legislatures from 2001-2010. The NCSL database identifies, categorizes, and summaries voting reforms from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This data is used to highlight the adoption of state level policies that are marginalizing to those factions deemed as "the other." The final section of the paper discusses the practical consequences of social constructions that inform public policy and its impact on communities and citizenship.
FRAMING THE ISSUES: SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION AND CRITICAL RACE THEORY
Schneider and Ingram's (1993) social construction of target population theory (hereafter referred to as SCTP) is the framework used to examine Black disenfranchisement in the United States. Social construction refers to the varying ways in which realities of the world are shaped; reflects the way objects present themselves in different social settings, mental structures, and historical circumstances; and are often generalized, intersubjective, and thoroughly embedded in our daily lives, thus making them difficult to observe (Schneider & Ingram, 1997). Therefore, the utility of using a social construction framework lies in its ability to bring the lived experiences of non-dominant groups to the forefront of public debate. Traditional methodologies in policy analysis ignored the influence of history and politics in the development of public policies and diminished the influence and authority of discourse, rhetoric, and narratives in informing policy decisions. However, the SCTP recognizes the significance of context and the importance of developing counter-narratives to challenge the dominant discourse that inform which groups are deserving or unworthy of public resources and assistance. Collectively, SCTP is a lens to understand how socially driven forces inform policy decisions.
The social construction of target population theory is rooted in the following principles: 1) culture and popular images of individuals and groups affect public policy; 2) public officials are heavily influenced by social constructions which shape the policy agenda and actual design of policy; and 3) politicians are pressured to conform to the status quo, whereby positively constructed groups receive benefits while negatively constructed groups are burdened by public policies (Schneider & Ingram, 1993). More specifically, SCTP examines the rules, tools, and rationales embedded in policy designs to explain the divergent policy outcomes for populations socially constructed as advantaged or dependent (Schneider & Ingram, 1997). Schneider and Ingram (1997) argue that such design elements contain symbolic and interpretive dimensions that are as important as the instrumental means directed at achieving goals. In this regard, the procedures, values, and justifications for policy development and design determine the worth of the populations targeted for policy action.
Schneider and Ingram (1993) identified four target populations: advantaged, contenders, dependents, and deviants. Figure 1 identifies each target population with respect to their positions of power (weak or strong) and construction type (positive or negative).
Advantaged groups are perceived to be both powerful and positively constructed, such as the elderly and business. Contenders, such as unions and the rich, are powerful but negatively constructed, usually undeserving. Dependents might include children or mothers and are considered to be politically weak, but they carry generally positive constructions. Deviants, such as criminals, are in the worse situation, since they are weak and negatively constructed (Schneider & Ingram, 1993, p. 336).
While each typology is important to understand the divergent experiences of target populations, it should be noted that these constructions are issue- and context-specific. Steedman (2012) argues
this interplay between race and dependence and independence provides the resources for articulating paternalist liberal defenses of racial hierarchy. Race thus limits the possibilities of full democratic citizenship, but provides a frame within which citizens reconcile democratic commitments and practices of subordination (p. 3).
Typologies become embedded into society's subconscious and difficult to alter. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge the leverage of such conceptions on informing public opinion and policy decisions. Within the context of this paper, advantaged will refer to Whites and dependents will refer to minorities based on the long-standing constructions that have been previously used. The SCTP exposes the contradiction of American democracy whereby access to the franchise has been, and continues to be limited based racial hierarchies and subjective measures of appeal, ability, and deservingness by the advantaged class. In other words most, Whites have always been considered racially superior in the United States, which granted them all of the rights and privileges outlined in the founding documents of this country. The result has led to power being concentrated in the hands of Whites, which has empowered them with the authority and resources to create policies, influence the economic and political decisions that govern the country, and shape the images of people and places as worthy and deserving or dependent and deviant. Minorities, on the other hand, have never fully been able to participate in the governing of the country based on their restricted access to fundamental benefits (e.g. suffrage rights, ability to own land) and the misinformed assumption of non-white inferiority. Consequently, minorities have been unsuccessful in their ability to counteract hundreds of years of marginalization and oppression.
Although significant gains have been made, minorities in the United States have not reached political or economic parity with their White counterparts. To help understand the implications of life as a second-class citizen in America, critical race theory is used to contextualize the experiences of nonwhites. CRT is a race-conscious theory that foregrounds race as the central construct for analyzing inequality (Zamudio et al., 2011). In this study, CRT is used to understand the juxtaposition of white supremacy (advantaged) and the subordination of minorities (dependence) within the context of society, institutions, and the law (Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 1995). Dixon and Rousseau (2006) argue that CRT is reflective of the following six common themes:
1) Recognizes that racism is pervasive and permanent part of American society;
2) Challenges dominant claims of objectivity, neutrality, colorblindness, and merit;
3) Challenges ahistoricism and insist on a contextual/historical analysis of the law;
4) Insists on recognition of the experiential knowledge of people of color in analyzing the law and society;
5) Is interdisciplinary; and
6) Works toward eliminating racial oppression as part of the broader goal of ending all forms of oppression (p. 4). Collectively the themes represent a holistic approach that seeks to understand, explain, and respond to the inequality and discrimination faced by people of color in the United States. This approach is grounded on five basic assumptions that race, history, interpretation, voice, and praxis matters (Zamudio et al., 2011). More specifically, CRT is associated with several specific concepts that are used to help explicate the marginalizing experiences and oppressive forces that work to disenfranchise minority groups. In this study, the concepts of colorblindness and interest convergence are highlighted to help contextualize the effect of injustice.
Colorblindness assumes that everyone is treated equally and race is no longer a distinguishing factor or barrier to access or opportunity. Kendall (2013) argues that "the current push for a "color-blind" society on the part of white politicians and many other Americans is ironic at best. That desire belies the fact that color and race have always been deeply embedded in America's legal systems" (p. 53). CRT recognizes that colorblindness, particularly within the context of the Constitution and the law, is indeed a racial ideology that maintains the domination that whites have over other Americans through the legitimation of the existing social, economic, and political structures (Gotanda, 1995). Collins (2009) argues "color blindness requires people who are visibly of color to be seen to provide evidence for their claim that color no long matters. One must see color to erase it and become blind to it" (p. 70). The ebb and flow of how race is used in policy development in the United States is fluid and is determined by the target population, time, context, and the interests of the decision-makers. Subsequently, these factors inform how politicians, administrators, and the public determine deservingness (e.g. worth, merit, credibility), which justifies the impetus to act in support of or in opposition to certain groups.
Interest convergence, another concept from CRT, explains why social progress for minorities have not been fully actualized or has moved cyclically rather than of linearly forward (Zamudio et al., 2011). Essentially, interest convergence asserts that Whites will only support racial justice if there is a direct benefit for them. In this regard, the interests of Whites and Blacks will unite to further the "given" cause. Otherwise, if Whites will not benefit, then they will not support such initiatives. Bell (1995), a founding CRT scholar, writes,
The interest of blacks in achieving racial equality will be accommodated only when it converges with the interests of whites. However, the Fourteenth Amendment, standing alone, will not authorize a judicial remedy providing effective racial equality for blacks where the remedy sought threatens the superior societal status of middle- and upper-class whites (p. 22).
Therefore, attempts to extend the franchise, ensure equality, and prevent discrimination policy initiatives have not fully been actualized despite landmark legislation and judicial actions. For example, the adoption of Constitutional Amendments (14 and 20), signed Executive Orders (8802 and 11246), approved legislation (Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, 1964, and 1991), and court-mandated judicial remedies (Brown v. Board of Education, Shelley v. Kraemer) all sought to level the playing field, but were ultimately undermined by implementation, lack of compliance, minimal enforcement, or overwhelming public opinion. The result was good-faith efforts by the federal government and the courts, but nothing proved effective enough to thwart the existing racial hierarchies and social constructions that informed how policy decisions were made and enacted (Bell, 1995; Gotanda, 1995; Schneider & Ingram, 2008).
Despite collective efforts, disparity persists for minorities in education, employment, morbidity, mortality, and community conditions as advantaged groups have effectively usurped public institutions and resources to undermine the efforts of achieving a true democracy. In this regard, discrimination is sanctioned under the guise of states rights, raceneutral policies, and a public discourse and policy processes that perpetuates "othering" through the use of authority, language, and policy designs. In other words, the political leanings of state legislatures have the potential to deny basic civil rights to minority groups, such that the states which typically identify, as conservative or "red states" often are more restrictive in the allocation of benefits to those groups deemed as deviant or dependent. For example, restrictive voter access policies (e.g. photo ID, proof of citizenship, shortened early voting periods) were more frequently passed in southern and battleground states like Ohio and Florida (Bentele & O'Brien, 2013). Bentele and O'Brien (2013) found strong empirical support for the position that "recent legislative efforts to restrict voter access are usefully conceptualized as yet another wave of election reforms in a long history for such reforms, pursued in order to demobilize and suppress particular categories of voters for partisan gain (p. 1104). Collectively, the societal structure, its institutions, customs, ideologies, and narratives reinforce inequities within society that go unquestioned and unchallenged (Zamudio et al., 2011).
Within this existing societal structure, CRT acknowledges how colorblindness has been used to mask the disproportionate racial outcomes of policy decisions based on the use of race-neutral language that gives the impression that burdens and benefits are distributed equally across all stakeholders. Additionally, the cyclical nature of civil rights advancements for minorities (e.g. progress and backslides) reveals that opportunities to challenge the status quo and undermine the self-interest of Whites have been met with resistance, which has consistently led to the denial of full citizenship rights for minorities. CRT recognizes the flaw in public discourse whereby the advantaged group (Whites) is always compared to dependent groups (minorities) without an acknowledgement of the institutional, social, and environmental factors that contribute to disparity. Whiteness thus becomes the normative measure of reality in American society. As a result, CRT emerges to comprehend the experiences of minorities or "the other" by providing a counter-narrative that challenges the dominant discourse about societal phenomena and its related interactions (Dixson & Rousseau, 2006; Zamudio et al., 2011). In its analysis, CRT disapproves of how the current capitalistic system is used to justify and propagate a system of difference, specifically by race and class. Thus, SCTP and CRT are used to expose deficiencies in the system, especially from the experiences of minority citizens.
In the next section, the literature is organized using four of the five assumptions of CRT (e.g. history, race, interpretation, and praxis matter) to contextualize the environment, policy actions, and discourse related to the denial of suffrage rights to Blacks in the United States. The fifth assumption (voice) is discussed at the end of the paper to exemplify the impact disenfranchisement has on individuals, communities, and society at-large.
DENYING ACCESS TO THE BALLOT: FOUNDATIONS AND TRENDS HISTORY MATTERS
Access to the ballot is integral in any democracy. However, since the beginning of the country's founding, there has been a long-standing tension that sought to deny suffrage rights to minorities. According to Keyssar (2000) records of the federal and state constitutional conventions demonstrate that most members of the new nation's political leadership did not favor a more democratic franchise. Thus, the negative social construction of Blacks as "lazy" and "dependent" not only justified chattel slavery for over 300 years, but also became an effective strategy to support further disenfranchisement. "Race prejudice operates as a collective process, whereby racial groups project negative images onto one another that reinforce a sense of exclusiveness" (Behrens, Uggen, & Manza, 2003, p. 574). As an advantaged group, white male landowners dictated the terms of citizenship by determining who was deserving and worthy of the franchise. Therefore, this concentration of power would remain solely in the hands of white men for the next 150 years, until the ratification of the 15th Amendment. 'Citizens' of the United States were given the right to vote regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude and Section 2 specifically gives Congress the power to enforce this Amendment by appropriate legislation (Constitution, 1778).
This action became the first articulation by the federal government to extend suffrage rights to minority men. Immediately thereafter, the federal government was proactive to ensure that Blacks were able to exercise their newly granted rights without fear of violence, hostility, and intimidation. During the era of Reconstruction, it became "a federal crime to violate state laws governing the election of federal officials, to interfere privately or officially with a citizen's right to vote, or to commit fraudulent acts in connection with registering voters or counting ballots" (Contreras, 2002, p. 58). However, federal intervention ended in 1876, which ultimately gave states autonomy to create and implement policies based on their respective preferences. The intergovernmental arrangements between the national and state governments enable each separate authority to "maintain order, make laws, spend public funds, and provide public services" (Robertson, 2012, p. 2). States make decisions that have a significant impact on all aspects of the public sphere: education, health care, the economy, the criminal justice system, and the environment. As such, federalism is advocated as the bulwark of democracy and freedom, makes government more responsive to citizens, fosters innovation, creates a more efficient and effective government, and nurtures national economic prosperity (Robertson, 2012).
However, a conflicting perspective recognizes the tension that often arises when the federal government seeks to facilitate the expansion of individual or group rights through social policy or civil rights initiatives. In this regard, federalism becomes problematic because state governments have often restricted the rights and privileges of diverse factions based on the tenets of "states' rights" (Elazar, 1972; Robertson, 2012). Therefore, despite explicit federal actions that seek to advance justice and democracy, states have the fundamental authority to circumvent justice based on partisan desires. The structure of federalism reveals a policy conundrum that manifests itself at every level of government, whereby state actions can essentially resist change, deny access, and create barriers to equality and opportunity. (4) This does not assume that states are not capable of extending justice and democracy to marginalized groups, but recognizes historic practices that have indeed sought to marginalize minorities with regard to suffrage rights. According to Kerrison (2008, p. 5) "the effort to safeguard an elite monopoly over policy and governance arose as early as 1870 with the implementation of varied voter disenfranchisement tactics, all of which were grafted from an agenda working against blacks' social mobility." Elazar (1972) acknowledges
Despite constant reaffirmations by the federal courts in the past two decades that the rights of blacks are protected under the United States Constitution, and despite presidential willingness to intervene with force where certain states allow these rights to be publically suppressed by violence, the actual status of blacks remains greatly dependent on the willingness of the states and their localities to carry out, or comply with national policy. This remains true in the face of civil rights legislation enacted in 1964, 1965, and 1968 which legally clarifies national policy and provides the means for enforcement of national constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal rights (p. 5).
Nice (1987) recognizes the relationship between federal and state policies as a 'scope of conflict' whereby federalism can be used to protect citizens' rights, but the latitude of state discretion enables the obstruction of civil rights policies and initiatives. Despite national efforts to promote equality, Nice (1987) argues "while few human inventions are infallible, the performance of the federal system on the issue of civil rights should encourage caution regarding the reliability of federalism as the protector of liberty" (p. 105). In other words, without state cooperation, civil rights will never be fully actualized for minority factions in this country. Therefore, state implementation of civil rights policies is contingent upon ideological and partisan values that oftentimes work counter to the rights and privileges afforded by our founding documents, federal policies, and Executive Orders. Discretion at the state level is powerful and has significant implications for minority populations that reside in highly partisan communities.
As the United States becomes increasingly diverse, larger factions of the population will want access to social, political, and economic structures to ensure that their respective needs are being met. Therefore, challenges to the traditional white male hetero-normative power structure reveal a political and economic infrastructure that works toward maintenance of the status quo, at the expense of the varying demographic groups represented in society. The effectiveness of these efforts lies at the hands of conservative interest groups and state legislators who have the influence, resources, and networks to enact coercive and social policies that squelch the advancement of minorities toward the achievement of economic and political goals (Behrens et al., 2003; Ewald, 2002; Kerrison, 2008; Preuhs, 2001). The result, has led to the enactment and implementation of divergent public policies designed to distribute benefits and burdens based on the desires of the advantaged factions in society.
RACE MATTERS
After slavery ended, the federal government sought to extend the franchise to former slaves through legislative action because the political, economic, and social circumstances were changing in society. During the days of Jim Crow, disenfranchisement policies were unequivocally racist. An early example is the implementation of the grandfather clause, which "excused persons registered on or prior to January 1, 1866, and their descendants from having to comply with any literacy or property requirement for [voting] registration" (Contreras, 2002, p. 59). Prior to 1866, Blacks were not eligible register and therefore were unable to cast a ballot, so their descendants would have been ineligible to vote based on the parameters of the grandfather clause. Additionally, it was illegal for Blacks to learn to read and write making literacy among the former slave population almost nonexistent.
Another race-conscious strategy is rooted in conceptions of criminality, which have resulted in Blacks being the target population for felony disenfranchisement policies (Alexander, 2010; Behrens et al., 2003; Ewald, 2002; Kerrison, 2008; Loury, 2008; Shapiro, 1993; Steedman, 2012; Wacquant, 2010). "Alabama, for instance, included a provision in its Reconstruction Constitution that denied the right to vote to those convicted of crimes of "moral turpitude," a class of crimes in which African Americans are disproportionately represented" (Preuhs, 2001, p. 736). The purposeful intent of marginalization was exemplified by a delegate at the 1901 Alabama Constitutional convention when he stated "[e]verybody knows that this Convention has done its best to disenfranchise the negro in Alabama" (as cited in Shapiro, 1993, p. 548).
Interactions with the criminal justice system have been an effective and enduring method to disenfranchise minority citizens. Persons with felony convictions in Florida, Kentucky, or Virginia will inevitably have their voting rights permanently revoked. As a result of felony disenfranchisement, the Sentencing Project (Kane, 2003; Kerrison, 2008) estimates that 5.85 million Americans are disenfranchised because a felony conviction with 1 in every 13 Blacks being unable to vote. While many of the strategies discussed have historical roots from the 19th century, they have been used to inform contemporary manifestations of disenfranchisement strategies. The result produces racially disparate outcomes for Black voters. Other race-conscious tactics used to minimize Black participation in elections included: all-white primaries (Behrens et al., 2003; Tokaji, 2006), violence and intimidation (Cobb & Jenkins, 2001; Ruddell & Urbina, 2004; Shapiro, 1993) , and poll taxes (Behrens et al., 2003; Stoughton, 2013; Wood & Trivedi, 2007).
Modern day disenfranchisement, however is subtle and race-neutral. In this regard, race-neutral or 'colorblind policies' refers to procedures that do not explicitly identify or articulate a relationship to any specific racial or ethnic group, but produces racially disproportionate outcomes after implementation. The use of provisional ballots, changes to voter registration, and decreasing the number of early voting days have been adopted under the premise that it will minimize the Black electorate (Kam & Lantigua, 2012; Volsky, 2013). In Ohio, bills are currently being proposed to reduce the number of absentee-voting days, to prevent newly registered voters from voting the day they register, and to require voters to present a valid identification before casting a ballot (Volsky, 2013). It is estimated that in Ohio nearly 900,000 eligible voters do not have the necessary ID, with one in four persons being African American (Volsky, 2013). The racial disparities are overwhelming and continue to be perpetuated under the guise of colorblind policies.
Other studies have identified disenfranchisement strategies imposed upon Blacks, such as felony disenfranchisement (Ewald, 2002; Kerrison, 2008); grandfather clauses (Ellis, 2009; Wood & Trivedi, 2007); poll taxes (Behrens et al., 2003; Wacquant, 2001); and literacy tests (Tokaji, 2006). These studies discuss the implication of disenfranchisement on the individuals specifically targeted by the aforementioned strategies. As mentioned, disenfranchisement through the mid-20th century was very explicit and race-conscious, however with the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 efforts to marginalize Blacks became covert. Therefore, explicitly racial strategies that sought to deny access to the ballot (e.g. violence and lynching) were replaced with methods that could impose a penalty or additional burden on some prospective voters. The effectiveness of this new era of disenfranchisement strategies is evident in their ability to have a racially disproportionate effect (having an adverse effect on Black and Latino populations), while being seemingly race-neutral or colorblind on the surface.
INTERPRETATION MATTERS
Deemed as the most successful civil rights legislation in the country (Engstrom, 1994), the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 "codifies and effectuates the 15th Amendment's permanent guarantee that, throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color" (Justice, n.d., para. 1). The Voting Rights Act was authorized by the federal government to eliminate the purposeful discrimination and intimidation tactics used by state officials to disenfranchise Blacks from the right to participate in elections. Each section of the VRA sought to minimize state efforts from a century's long attempt to dilute the vote, while also restricting state autonomy to enforce disenfranchisement laws, thus increasing the likelihood of compliance. Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act have been significant components of the law because they identified jurisdictions (e.g. states, counties, and townships) that consistently erected barriers for minority groups to access the ballot. The criteria used to identify violators of the 14th and 15th amendment included recognizing all jurisdictions that used "tests or devices" such as literacy tests, judgments of moral character, or proof of qualification and identifying localities with less than 50% of eligible voters registered for the presidential election in November 1964 (Justice, n.d., p. para. 1). Using these factors, the federal government identified nine states (e.g. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia) and several political subdivisions that would be classified as "covered jurisdictions." As a result, each state required federal preclearance (or approval) by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before any changes to voting procedures could take place.
The utility of the VRA is evidenced by the subsequent amendments to the act that extended the preclearance provisions for five years in 1965, seven years in 1975, and twenty-five years in 1982. The latest articulation of the bill was reauthorized in 2006 with overwhelming bipartisan support. Enacted during a time of civil unrest and racial tension, the Voting Rights Act sought to further articulate and manifest the full rights of citizenship that was established over 100 years ago through several Constitutional amendments and subsequent Civil Rights Acts and Executive Orders. In many respects, the VRA offered minorities the full protections of citizenship based on federal investment to ensure compliance through the use of established formulas, federal examiners, and the commitment of financial and personnel resources toward the effective implementation of the law. Therefore, despite historic efforts to ensure access and equality, practical success did not come until the federal government provided an interpretation of the VRA that demonstrated its investment in the application of democracy. However in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in the Shelby County v. Holder decision declared section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional (Justice, 2013). This decision allowed states and jurisdictions, with a long-standing history of disenfranchisement, to make electoral decisions without federal approval. It is in this vein that democracy will be thwarted by colorblind interpretations resulting in policies are being adopted across the country that dissuade civic engagement among low-income minority groups.
The SCOTUS decision was a devastating blow to the 48 years of progress made to advance the political interest of minority groups in this country, particularly as the federal government's role to ensure access was recognized as burdensome and financially costly for the "covered jurisdictions." (Schwartz, 2013). Additionally, the majority opinion states, "...voting tests were abolished, disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race were erased, and African-Americans attained political office in record numbers" ("Shelby County v. Holder," 2013, para. 50) further determining it irrational "for Congress to distinguish between States in a fundamental way based on 40-year-old data, when today's statistics tell an entirely different story" ("Shelby County v. Holder," 2013, para. 58). Thus, the quantitative representations of political parity and access as articulated by the majority opinion (e.g. African Americans in political office, disparities in voter registration and electoral turnout erased) disqualify the qualitative experiences (e.g. waiting in long lines, misinformation, and intimidation) that ultimately justify the need for voting rights protections.
The courts have paved the way for unchecked administrative discretion with regard to the policies and procedures that govern the electoral process across the country. As states have significant latitude with how they implement federal policies, it is important to acknowledge the divergent realities of policy outcomes for advantaged and dependent groups. The VRA is a policy that legitimized the franchise for Blacks and language minorities in this country at the behest of the federal government. However, the effectiveness of the law once again lies in the hands of state and local officials responsible for its implementation.
PRAXIS MATTERS
Schneider and Ingram (1997) discuss policy design within the context of the social construction of target populations and they acknowledge that there are rules, tools, and rationales for delivering benefits and burdens for groups. According to Schneider and Ingram (1997) rationales serve to legitimate designs to fit into the value paradigm of the citizenry; however, a "disparity between the democratic values held by American citizens and the actual conditions of life in the American democracy produces a serious problem of governmental legitimacy" (p. 132). In this regard, rationales are used to support the status quo, thus justifying the agenda, policy goals, identified target population, and types of rules and tools used to govern. Rules and tools become the mechanism to carry out the desired policy objectives of politicians. Consequently, benefits for the advantaged are usually in the form of capacity building initiatives (subsidies and entitlements), are more inclusive, and are conceptualized as supporting national interests; whereas benefits for dependents are likely to be income-tested subsidies (establish eligibility), are exclusionary, and prefaced around equal opportunity and fairness (Schneider & Ingram, 1997). Burdens, on the other hand, reveal the extent of disparity regarding how penalties are distributed across target populations. For example, burdens for advantaged populations include self-regulation, while dependent populations receive sanctions (Schneider & Ingram, 1997). Within the context of policy formation, these distinctions dictate policy outcomes and impact.
The role of the administrator is significantly important based on the level of discretion available to implement policies. Lipsky (1980) argued "... in a sense street-level bureaucrats [administrators] implicitly mediate aspects of the constitutional relationship of citizens to the state. In short, they hold the keys to a dimension of citizenship" (p. 4). Despite attempts at professionalization, whereby administrators are bound to the norms of the profession, it must be acknowledged that the lack of uniformity across states with regard to voting rules and procedures also creates problems when implementing policies. The inconsistent application of laws is very evident within a state across the various jurisdictions. Stuart (2004) recognizes that even within the same state, Republican counties are likely to disproportionately purge African Americans from the voter rolls than Democratic counties. Therefore, within the context of polarized political battles, Kimball, Kropf, and Battle (2006) argue that "a series of close and competitive national elections in recent years have combined to produce increased controversy and litigation over election procedures. In this climate, there is an increased awareness that candidates and political parties may try to manipulate election rules and procedures for political gain" (p. 448). Thus, administrative discretion becomes fundamental to understanding how federal intentions may be legally undermined within state governments.
Policy design essentially illuminates the people and spaces society identifies as deserving and undeserving. Administrative actions can help to extend democracy or suppress it. Thus, it is important that state legislative decisions to adopt colorblind election reform policies are examined for their racial implications. In an ideal world, the commandeering of voting privileges from an eligible voting population would outrage all American citizens, but due to the negative social construction of Blacks as unworthy and need to preserve white self-interests, disenfranchisement has persisted over for hundreds of years. Thus, the convergence of interests between Whites and minorities has not coalesced well enough to galvanize the social, economic, and political capital to hold state legislators accountable for their actions that undermine democracy. Gaynor and Blessett (2014) argue that the cyclical successes of civil rights achievements for minority groups, or the ebb in flow of progress and backslides, is indicative of the interest convergence principle that is the foundation of critical race theory.
For example, the SCOTUS rendered two significantly important decisions in the summer of 2013--the Voting Rights Act and the Defense of Marriage Act--which in many respects denied rights and privileges to one group (African Americans), while simultaneously extending civil rights benefits to another group (LGBT citizens). In this case, the interests of the dominant culture (white men) aligned more closely with LGBT movement than with the voting rights movement. How else can you explain the advancement of civil rights for LGBT couples, when just 20 years ago these groups were socially constructed as deviant? Why has it taken so long for African Americans to be recognized as full citizens? In my judgment, the presence of whiteness in leadership positions in the LGBT movement demonstrated their respective power and privilege, which is associated with the dominant culture. However, the minimal presence of whiteness, the significant presence of color, and the lack of resources, power, and privilege result in lethargic advances for the civil rights movement. Collectively, a society's actions express their values. Chants of democracy and equality mean nothing in a reality where skin color, whether conscious or unconscious, informs how we engage and interact with one another.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This study seeks to build upon the existing knowledge of disenfranchisement policies and extend the discussion about the effects on target populations more broadly. Disenfranchisement policies are categorized based on their ability to: cause financial hardships, create confusion, limit access to the ballot, dilute the vote geographically, and use subjective measures of eligibility (see Table 1). This section identifies and explains both the historic and contemporary disenfranchisement policies based on their effect on low-income minority groups or those deemed as "the other."
Financial Hardship
Disenfranchisement policies in this category are designed to associate a financial obligation with the right to vote. The enactment of the poll tax and voter ID requirements create a financial hardship for lower-income citizens. A poll tax is "a relatively low, lump-sum tax, had been used to discourage voting, particularly among Blacks. It was easily manipulated by reminding some people to pay and not others, or by refusing to accept payment from some people, or by requiring some people to show proof they had paid--the possibilities were endless" (Nice, 1987, p. 103). As Blacks worked primarily as sharecroppers or domestic laborers throughout the early 20th century, a new tax often created an additional barrier to accessing the ballot.
Today, state legislatures across the country have enacted Voter ID laws to help ensure the integrity of the ballot (Legislatures, 2013b). However, the ID requirement has been likened to a "modern day poll tax" because of the financial costs of obtaining the primary documents to receive a state-issued identification card (Stoughton, 2013, para. 8). Ellis (2009) argues "laws that rely on socioeconomic status to define eligibility to vote have served--and currently risk becoming, once again--a proxy for the exclusion of otherwise eligible voters from the electorate (p. 1026). Therefore, at the intersection of race and class, are minority populations--Black and Latino--that are adversely impacted by these seemingly colorblind election reforms.
For example, with regard to Voter ID, NCLS reported, "since 2001, nearly 1,000 bills have been introduced in 46 states. Twenty-four states have passed major legislation during the period of 2003-2012" (Shen, 2012, para. 6). It is estimated that approximately 11 percent of U.S. citizens do not have government-issued IDs, mostly older, low-income, and minority citizens (Legislatures, 2013c). As a result, Voter ID laws have a substantial financial impact on states as they seek to administer elections. According to Agraharkar, Weiser, and Skaggs (2011) states must take measures to make IDs readily accessible to voters who lack them and potentially open new ID-issuing offices and/or pay the costs of obtaining supporting documents necessary to secure a photo ID. Indiana's estimated costs to meet such requirements for approximately 168,000 residents was in excess of $1.3 million (Agraharkar et al., 2011). While it appears that the financial burden rests upon the state, prospective voters are still greatly impacted, particularly if states do not adequately fund Voter ID programs and interventions. The result produces a disproportionate impact on prospective minority voters.
Creates Confusion
The tactics within this category have the potential to confuse voters about key logistical procedures for voter registration and/or voting in an election. Changing the rules to voter registration, restrictions to voter assistance (particularly for English as a Second Language residents), and the inconsistent application of felony disenfranchisement laws are examples of approaches used to confuse the voter. For example, Florida legislators decreased the number of early voting days and closed polls on the Sunday before an election (known as 'Souls to the Polls') targeted Black voters (Kam & Lantigua, 2012). 'Souls to the Polls' is time-honored tradition in the Black community where faith institutions coordinate transportation to get their congregants to the voting booth. Ultimately, voters that are uninformed or misinformed about new procedures can result in decreased turnout, or an extended time at polling locations as prospective voters try to "figure out" how the new rules or procedures are applied.
Limits Access to the Ballot
While all of the strategies identified essentially 'limits access to the ballot', these tactics are intentional and have racial implications for their use. The use of violence to dissuade Blacks from voting was a customary practice throughout the 1900s. Murder and lynching were profound intimidation methods that proved effective to quell the political presence of Blacks, particularly in the south (Nice, 1987, p. 103). Although such tactics are no longer prevalent, other covert approaches have been implemented to silence the Black electorate. Contemporary legislative measures to limit access to the ballot include changing the procedures, locations, and polling places were votes could be cast. New measures are not as racially obvious as tactics from the early 20th century, but the disparate effects are revealed when the data is aggregated along race and class lines.
Dilute the Vote Geographically
The census, conducted every 10 years, represents an opportunity to accurately determine the number of citizens in the United States, apportion state representation to the U.S. House of Representatives, and inform decisions about spending on housing, highways, hospitals, schools, and numerous programs, which are vital to the health and welfare of the U.S. population and economy (Bureau, 2013). As a result, the concentration of demographic groups potentially bolsters political representation and economic interest. Sadly, after every decennial census, state and local governments reconfigure districts and wards to dilute the political strength of Black areas. According to Tokaji (2006) "common vote dilution practices included at-large elections, gerrymandered districts, majority-vote requirements, anti-single-shot laws, annexation of outlying areas with predominately white populations, and replacement of elected officials with appointed officials" (p. 7).
Additionally, legislative efforts are increasing to modify the current rules regarding the Electoral College, which represents an attempt to undermine the political power of urban communities, which are typically composed of low-income minorities. After the 2012 election, a number of states (e.g. Virginia, Wisconsin, and Michigan) expressed an interest in changing the rules to reapportion votes based on congressional districts (Ewald, 2002). This change heavily favors Republicans as minorities are heavily concentrated in urban communities and thus, represents a small number of congressional districts relative to predominately white communities in rural and suburban jurisdictions. Such a move would decrease the power of densely populated areas, often representative of a Democratic constituency.
Subjective Measures of Eligibility
Literacy tests, vouchers of good character, and judgments of moral turpitude are no longer standard means to disenfranchise Black voters. However, subjective measures to determine eligibility are still in use. Provisional ballots serve as one such approach. The Brennan Center for Justice (Bureau, 2013) defines a provisional ballot as
Those ballots given to voters whose eligibility to vote has been questioned, disputed, or challenged for some reasons include: the voter's name does not appear on the registration list, the voter did not satisfy certain identification requirements, the voter's recorded name or address is incorrectly listed, election workers or private individuals committed errors (para. 1).
Federal law requires that voters should be able to cast a provisional ballot and once election officials verify the voter is registered, the provisional ballot must be counted. As stated earlier, the ability to challenge a person's eligibility based on an "assumption" of citizenship is problematic. As a result, such assumptions and subjectivity can delay engagement, and in extreme cases result in ballots being rejected altogether.
Despite attempts by the federal government to "level the playing field" for minorities, the manifestation of that reality has yet to be realized. As a result, history and race are a focal point when attempting to understand how these diametrically opposed actions (federal mandates and state implementation) sustained itself within the context of the American democratic framework.
METHODOLOGY
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) is an organization that offers assistance (e.g. tools, resources, and information) to state legislatures to help identify the best solutions to complex problems. NCSL's organizational mission is to "improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures; promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures; and ensure state legislatures a strong cohesive voices in the federal system" (Legislatures, 2013a). According to the website "NCSL provides access to current state and federal legislation and a comprehensive list of state documents including state statutes, constitutions, legislative audits and research reports. Through NCSL website, users can learn about current policy trends, track the status of bills, and identify resources for any of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In addition, NCSL has developed a variety of specialized legislative and statutory compilations on issues important to state legislatures" (Legislatures, 2013a). For this study, the NCSL Elections Reform Legislation database was used to examine the number and types of voting laws passed by state legislatures from 2001-2010. The Elections Reform Legislation database has four fields for inquiry: state (any or all 50 states can be selected), status (adopted, enacted, failed, needed an override, left pending, sent to the governor, or vetoed), year (2001-2010), and subtopic (types of reform legislation).
The study methodology was broken into two different phases. In phase one, electoral reform policies were aggregated by their effect on the target population, based on their ability to create financial hardship, create confusion, limit access to the ballot, dilute the vote geographically, or use subjective measures of eligibility. Ninety-nine different types of election reform policies, as provided by NCLS, were examined to identify policies that have the aforementioned impacts. The laws in table 2 represent broad categories as identified by the NCSL database. Although states may have adopted policies that fall within one of the categories above, the specific regulations and provisions vary by state. Therefore, policies will be described in the broadest sense. Twenty-one disenfranchisement policies (see Table 2) were identified and categorized based on their effect on prospective voters. For example, election reform policies that require an additional financial expense for prospective voters were coded and categorized as policies that would create a financial hardship. To ensure consistency and minimize bias, a second researcher examined the 99 election reform policies and categorized them into one of the five disenfranchisement categories based on their impact on the target population. (5)
In the second phase, the researcher filtered enacted legislation by year for all states. Each year was examined to determine what types and how many disenfranchisement laws were enacted. This process was repeated for each subsequent year (2002, 2003, etc.). It should be noted that disenfranchisement policies are not mutually exclusive. In other words, some policies are multi-faceted whereby their impacts extend beyond one disenfranchisement category specifically. For example, election reform legislation identified as Polling Places has several subcategories of laws (e.g. location, hours, or voting center). These policies can be used to create confusion with prospective voters and limit access to the ballot based on incorrect, inaccurate, or incomplete information about where to vote, times available to vote, or eligible places to vote.
ANALYSIS
Each of the five categories in table 2 represent the overarching policy measures that are used to disenfranchise minorities from political engagement. During 2001-2010, states passed 1,853 election reform laws, while 21-percent (391) of policies fell within one of the five disenfranchisement categories identified by the researcher.
Financial Hardship
There were 4 different types of policies passed that would likely create a financial hardship for prospective voters. Twenty-two states enacted policies related to voter ID--all voters, which require all prospective voters to show valid identification prior to casting a ballot; while 18 states passed voter ID--new voters only laws that mandate all new voters to show valid proof of identification before being considered eligible to vote. With regard to registration, 6 states passed registration--ID required, which necessitates that proof of citizenship be provided (e.g. state issued identification, social security number, birth certificate) for all persons that are interested in registering to vote. The policies related to voters absence from work were enacted by 5 states to identify acceptable parameters with regard to missing work in order to participate in elections. For example, in Minnesota, acceptable absences include the time it takes to appear a polling place, cast a ballot, and return work. Each state has the authority to determine the appropriate form of identification that is needed to be eligible to vote.
Creates Confusion
There were 12 different types of laws that have the potential to create confusion among prospective voters. Absentee voting allows eligible voters to cast a ballot either through mail or in person prior to Election Day. Absentee voting laws were passed in 42 states, while absentee voting--early voting/in-person voting laws were enacted in 23 states (e.g. changing the provisions for eligibility, deadlines, and length of time to vote). Collectively, these laws represented the largest number of election reform laws passed within this category. Thirty-two states passed provisional voting laws to identify procedures for prospective voters whose eligibility may be in question. Eligibility may be questioned if a person's address or name has been changed, their registration information is inaccurate, or the voter refuses to show identification. However, once the voter's identification has been verified, the person's vote is eligible to be counted along with the other ballots.
Laws identified as voters--convicted felon were enacted by 27 different states. These policies dictate whether formerly incarcerated persons are eligible to access the ballot and specify the processes and procedures for the restoration of voting rights. Polling places have several subcategories of laws that were passed in numerous states across the country: polling places locations (N= 25) clarifies eligible and ineligible places to serve as the registrar for voting; polling places--arrangements of/procedures at (N=13) regulates the procedures that govern the voting process within local jurisdictions; polling places--hours (N=17) modified the times for which ballots could be cast and outlines procedures for prospective voters in line at the times the polls close; and polling places--voting center (N=9) identifies sites eligible and in some cases allocates resources for technical and operational support. Twenty-two states passed laws regarding precinct definition. These laws specify the place and maximum population of voters in a given precinct, usually based on residential addresses. Six states passed voter information pamphlets and 34 states enacted voter education/information policies designed to identify the appropriate types of outreach, allocates resources to support education and awareness, and outline the types of information that should be available to prospective voters prior to Election Day. Finally, 12 states modified policies related to registration deadline, which affect voter registration requirements.
Limits Access to the Ballot
Although many of the policies in this category have been or will be discussed in other disenfranchisement categories, there are 11 policies classified as having the potential to limit access to the ballot for prospective voters and states (N) were varied in their approaches to adopt such policies. For example, absentee voting (N=42) and absentee voting--early voting/in person absentee (N=23), polling places--locations (N=25), polling places--hours (N=17), polling places--arrangements of/procedures at (N= 13), polling places--voting center (N=9), voter ID--all voters (N=22), voters ID--new voters only (N=18), and voters-convicted felons (N=27) can create confusion, but also have the ability to limit access to the ballot based on new state legislative provisions. Therefore, depending upon the specific state regulations, modifying the eligibility requirements, changing polling locations or modifying hours to vote can significantly impact a person's ability to meet the new stipulations to access the ballot. Twenty-eight states enacted laws that fall within the umbrella of registration--central list and 11 states passed registration drives policies that that regulate how voter registration can occur, identifies eligible third-party groups to facilitate voter registration, determines how registration lists can be maintained, how they can be used, and the types of information that can be shared across stakeholder groups.
Dilute the Vote Geographically
There are two types of policies that have the potential to dilute the vote geographically. Twenty-two laws that fall within the precinct definition were enacted by states that have the potential to not only create confusion, but also have the potential to dilute the vote geographically. Precincts are created to determine the number of voters eligible to cast ballots within a particular community; therefore the siting of districts may not be accessible to all prospective and eligible voters. The Electoral College is a long-standing institution that formally elects the President and Vice-President. Under the current system, if a candidate wins the popular vote, they will receive all of the states electoral votes. From 2001-2010, 13 states passed laws to ultimately keep the current system. However, it should be acknowledged that momentum is gaining to change the rules, which ultimately dilutes the collective power of the urban vote.
Subjective Measures of Eligibility
There were 3 different types of policies passed within this category that have the potential to use subjective measures of eligibility to determine if someone can cast a ballot. Ten states passed laws classified as challenges to voters, which is designed to empower poll workers with the discretion to challenge voters at the polls. Thirty-two states enacted provisional ballots legislation. Provisional ballots are often given to voters who have been "questioned" about their eligibility to vote, while 16 states enacted voters--miscellaneous qualifications, which broadly refer to residency requirements and stipulations for people with mental disabilities.
The VRA and "preclearance"
The Voting Rights Act specifically identified nine states (e.g. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia) that need a "preclearance" before any changes to voting procedures could be enacted. Table 3 highlights the different types of disenfranchisement policies adopted by the identified legislatures from 2001-2010. (7) Virginia, Texas, and Louisiana passed the largest number of laws during the designated timeframe at 31, 27, and 22 respectively. Despite evidence of discrimination in the 2012 Presidential election, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision essentially gutted provisions that require federal oversight of election regulations and procedures. Therefore, states that have a lineage of discrimination were freed from their obligations to get approval from the federal government. Justices cite an inconsistency in the equal sovereignty because "preclearance" rules were not applied evenly across all 50 states.
The erosion of such protections is likely to have a detrimental effect on minority voters across the country, but especially for those citizens that reside within these state jurisdictions. The enactment of disenfranchisement policies is on the rise and without the political capacity to challenge purposeful discrimination, minority voters will continue to remain on the margins and therefore oppressed within a democracy.
DISCUSSION
The social construction of target populations and critical race theory have been used to frame this study to help understand the effects of 21st century disenfranchisement on minority groups in the United States. The analysis reveals that a number of states have passed disenfranchisement policies that are complex and multifaceted, thus having wide-ranging impacts on prospective voters. In this context, legislation reform policies appear to focus on procedural and logistical concerns, which is different than the outright racist actions of violence and intimidation used throughout the 20th century. While the diminished use of violence is a tremendous step in the right direction, the colorblind nature of disenfranchisement is just as dangerous and frightening based on its outward appearance that all laws are equally applied to all groups. In this regard, the colorblind nature for which these policies have emerged does not acknowledge the long-standing disparities that exist with regard to minorities being able to access the ballot and certainly does not recognize the role of state legislatures in their attempts to circumvent suffrage rights for racial and ethnic minorities. Therefore, disenfranchisement like other marginalizing experiences in education, employment, and health position society to blame the victim and not the institutions and structures responsible for injustice and denying freedom and equality.
For example, the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court stated "...voting tests were abolished, disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race were erased, and African Americans attained political office in record numbers" ("Shelby County v. Holder," 2013, para. 50). However, throughout the 2012 election there were consistent reports about long voting lines, challenges to voters based on "questionable" citizenship status, and inaccurate voter information distributed to language minorities (Agraharkar et al., 2011; Kam & Lantigua, 2012), thus revealing the racially disproportionate effect. Additionally, this study finds that all of the nine states that required preclearance to change voting laws, prior to the Voting Rights Act being deemed unconstitutional, passed at least 5 disenfranchisement policies. While five policies may not seem like a significant number, these are states with a history of discrimination and disenfranchisement against prospective minority voters. Virginia and Texas passed the most disenfranchisement laws during the study period with 14 and 13 respectively. Although no specific policy was enacted by all 50 states during the study period, all states have passed legislation that fall into one of the five disenfranchisement categories. Therefore, it is important to highlight such trends, particularly as the United States is becoming more racially diverse.
Although the dominant discourse (e.g. conservative pundits, Supreme Court Justices, and politicians) argues that democracy is accessible for all groups, these perspectives are interpreted and voiced from a privileged position in society. In other words, as members of the dominant class, their experience with disenfranchisement is almost nonexistent, if ever challenged or threatened. Therefore, any interpretations of disenfranchisement are not grounded in the lived experiences of racial and ethnic minorities across the country, but from the privilege position and status of those who make, interpret, and implement laws based on their own personal experiences. Thus, critical race theory is necessary to highlight the experience of "the other" through the development and evaluation of counternarratives, storytelling, and personal narratives that gives prominence to the injustice experienced by minorities in a supposedly colorblind society. Without such an acknowledgement, the experiences and values of Whiteness will remain the normative frame of reference.
VOICE MATTERS: IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
The social construction of target groups is fundamental to American society. It is through rhetoric and discourse that people debate the topics of the day, educate and interact with one another, and form impressions about groups and societies, people and places. Social constructions, language, and the narratives are more influential in informing policy decisions than given credit. As a result, it is important to initiate a critical dialogue about the long-standing practices and implications of public policy decisions on people and places. Most recently, Latinos in the United States are experiencing the 21st century version of "othering" as discussions about their citizenship status plague their ability to vote, gain employment, receive an education, access medical care, or pursue legal protection for fear of being targeted as "illegal" or "undocumented." Ultimately, such constructions justify inquiry into a person's legal status, simply due to primary characteristics (e.g. race and language). In such instances, history does matter because it reveals a societal patterned response of "othering" diverse and emergent factions with society that are not part of the dominant group.
Minorities have been consistently classified as "the other" and as a result, have been burdened by policy decisions that seek to limit their decision-making power, diminish their access, and deny their opportunities to gain social, political, and economic parity with their white counterparts. This reality is amplified when examining the demographic profiles of local, state, and national political leaders in this country. Despite the diversifying of American society, the decision-making power remains concentrated among older, affluent, heterosexual white men. In this regard, white interests are preserved as minorities are relegated to second-class citizenship status. Second-class citizenship status for communities of color is equated with concentrated poverty, segregated neighborhoods, inadequate educational opportunities, proximity to crime and violence, and unsatisfactory health outcomes (Alexander, 2010; Keyssar, 2000; Massey & Denton, 1993; Wacquant, 2010). This concentrated disadvantage is often situated within a discussion of meritocracy, whereby individuals should be able to 'pull themselves up by the bootstrap' and be productive because this is the land of opportunity.
Within the context of our colorblind society, a person's circumstances are dictated not by society, but by his or her individual efforts. However, this rhetoric does not acknowledge institutional racism, purposeful discrimination, and the cumulative effects of social disadvantage for minorities in the United States. In other words, as long as people and institutions are not and have not been blamed for the gross disparities in resources, services, and access, then there is no responsibility for our elected leaders or citizens to change the discrepancies that perpetuate difference among racial groups in American society. This study does not attempt to universalize the experiences of all minorities with respect to discrimination and disenfranchisement in the United States. However, those target groups burdened by election reform legislation are primarily low-income minorities. In some respects, college students and senior citizens appear to be the collateral damage of the concerted effort to disenfranchise African Americans wit new Voter ID laws. College students and seniors have been greatly impacted by rule changes based on residency requirements, limited financial resources, and the restricted access to primary documentation (Ellis, 2009).
Change, ultimately has the ability to shift the existing power dynamic and disrupt the status quo. Therefore, it is in this vein that critical race theory highlights the contradiction of "American democracy" by examining the real lived experiences of minorities as juxtaposed to the dominant narrative perpetuated in society about fairness, equality, freedom, and justice. Suffrage rights are fundamental to American society and should not be undermined by election reform legislation that seeks to cause financial hardship, create confusion, limits access to the ballot, dilute the vote geographically, or swayed by subjective measures of eligibility. In response to the latest voting restriction laws passed in North Carolina, Attorney General Eric Holder has filed a suit to challenge the State's restrictive voting. According to the Justice Department (2013)
The North Carolina law includes troubling new restrictions, such as provisions that will significantly reduce early voting days; eliminate same-day registration during early voting; impose a restrictive photo identification requirement for in-person voting; and prohibit the counting of otherwise legitimate provisional ballots that are mistakenly cast in the right county, but in the wrong precinct. The Justice Department expects to show that the clear and intended effects of these changes would contract the electorate and result in unequal access to participation in the political process on the account of race (para. 3).
Consequently, all of the changes enacted appear to be race-neutral or colorblind. However, there are racially disproportionate outcomes that have resulted and will continue to be perpetuated if such laws remain unchallenged. Therefore, disenfranchisement needs to be addressed through a more inclusive and conscious approach that recognizes the relationship between negative social constructions and being targeted for the burdens of public policy. Furthermore, experiences of minorities must be valued and considered as a valid discourse to inform policy decisions or else the existing hegemony will continue to dictate how problems, experiences, and solutions are framed. Thus, the need for a more diverse and engaged electorate and subsequent political representation is necessary in order to move toward a true democracy.
CONCLUSION
The 2010 Census revealed that Latino's represent the largest minority group at 16-percent, with Blacks at 13-percent, and Asians close to 5-percent (Henderson & Haines, 2013). Therefore, the demography of American society is changing rapidly and thus, requires improvements within the political and economic systems to accommodate the existing diversity. However, despite the gains from the 1950s and 60s Civil Rights Movements with regard to the implementation of the Voting Rights Act, Affirmative Action, and Fair Housing policies, racial and ethnic minorities continue to face obstacles and barriers related to access. Unlike the Jim Crow south where racism and discrimination was explicit, in contemporary American society such behavior is veiled within colorblind policies that suggests ".everybody enjoys equal treatment without regard to race" (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011). In this regard, disenfranchisement strategies are embraced because they appear to be fair. However, the racial implications are dramatic and impactful for families and communities disengaged from the political process. Additionally, the election of the first Black president has resulted in a devastating public discourse that claims that the United States is now a post-racial society. Such a conversation fails to recognize institutional racism and structural inequality that has effectively imposed oppressive forces on low-income minority groups every single day. Whether it is trying to access the ballot, obtain and secure decent education and employment, or acquire quality housing, Blacks and Latinos remain overwhelmingly at the margins.
The social construction of target populations and critical race theory are used in this study to offer a critical perspective on the rise of disenfranchisement policies designed to target minority groups. Without recognition of these interactions, the social construction of target populations, policy design, and public opinion will continue to 'blame the victim' without a critical investigation of macro-level actors, institutions, and behaviors that promote disparity. It cannot be expected that people will improve their lives if they experience a "civil death" based on where they reside, previous offenses, or the color of their skin, which has served as an effective tool to disempower. Without the ability to vote, citizens are relegated to second-class status--essentially they are denied all of the rights, privileges, and benefits of being a citizen in this country. Therefore, if American society seeks to live up to the values identified as uniquely American (e.g. the right to vote) then once and for all, such principles should be fairly implemented and accessible to all citizens.
Appendix A: Disenfranchisement Legislation by State
Disenfranchisement States that Enacted the Legislation
Legislation
Absentee voting Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
Absentee Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida,
voting--Early Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,
voting/In-person Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, North
absentee Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia
Challenges to Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nebraska,
voters Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota,
Pennsylvania, Utah
Electoral college Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming
Polling Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois,
places--Arrangements Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Rhode
of/Procedures at Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,
West Virginia
Polling Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
places--hours Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia
Polling Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,
places--location Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
West Virginia
Polling Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, New Mexico, South
places--voting Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming
centers
Precinct definition California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
West Virginia
Provisional voting Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, Wyoming
Registration-- Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,
centralized lists Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia
Registration-- Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, New
deadlines Mexico, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Registration--ID Georgia, Minnesota, New Hampshire, South Dakota,
required Washington, Wisconsin
Registration drives California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, South
Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia
Voters--absence Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island,
from work Virginia
Voters--convicted Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii,
felons Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Voter education Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut,
/Information Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia
Voter information California, Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada,
pamphlets Oregon, Vermont
Voter ID--all Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
voters Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana,
Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
Voter ID--new Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
voters Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New
Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Voter--miscellaneous Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
qualifications Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington
REFERENCES
Agraharkar, V., Weiser, W., & Skaggs, A. (2011). The Cost of Voter ID Laws: What the Courts Say (pp. 1-15). New York: Brennan Center for Justice.
Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow. New York: The New Press.
Behrens, A., Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2003). Ballot Manipulation and the "Menace of Negro Domination": Racial Threat and Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850-2002. The American Journal Sociological, 109(3), 559-605.
Bell, D. A. (1995). Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest Convergence. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed a Movement (pp. 20-29). New York: The New Press.
Bentele, K. G., & O'Brien, E. E. (2013). Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies. Perspectives on Politics, 11(4), 1088-1116.
Bureau, C. (2013). Decennial Census Retrieved June 28, 2013, from http://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/demogra phic/decennial census.html
Cobb, M. D., & Jenkins, J. A. (2001). Race and the Representation of Blacks' Interests during Reconstruction. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 181-204.
Collins, P. H. (2009). Another Kind of Public Education: Race, Schools, the Media, and Democratic Possibilities. Boston: Beacon.
Contreras, A. R. (2002). Minority Voting Issues. Educational Policy, 12, 56-71.
Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (1995). Introduction. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement (pp. xiii-xxxii). New York: The New Press.
Dixson, A. D., & Rousseau, C. K. (2006). Critical Race Theory in Education: All God's Children Got a Song. New York Routledge.
Elazar, D. J. (1972). American Federalism: A View from the States. New York: Harper Colllins.
Ellis, A. R. (2009). The Cost of the Vote: Poll Taxes, Voter Identification, and the Price of Democracy. Denver University Law Review, 86(3), 1023-1068.
Engstrom, R. L. (1994). The Voting Rights Act: Disenfranchisement, Dilution, and Alternative Election Systems. PS: Political Science and Politics, 27(4), 685688.
Ewald, A. (2002). "Civil Death": The Ideological Paradox of Criminal Disenfranchisement Law in the United States. Wisconsin Law Review, 1045-1132.
Page 48, Line 30--Insert reference "Gaynor, T.S. and Blessett, B. (2014). Inequality at the Intersection of the DOMA and VRA: A Review of the 2013 Supreme Court Decisions. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 36(2), 261267.
Gotanda, N. (1995). A Critique of "Our Constitution in Colorblind". In K. Crenshaw, N. Gontanda, G. Peller & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed a Movement (pp. 257-275). New York: The New Press.
Henderson, N.-M., & Haines, E. (2013). Republicans in Virginia, other states seeking electoral college changes Politics. Retrieved June 30, 2013, from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-0124/politics/36528394 1 electoral-votes-votes-bycongressional-district-electoral-college hooks, b. (2013). Writing Beyond Race. New York: Routledge.
Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., & Ramirez, R. R. (2011). Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010 2010 Census Briefs (pp. 1-24). Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Justice, D. o. (2013). Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder on the Lawsuit Against the State of North Carolina Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2013/agspeech-130930.html
Justice, U. S. D. o. (2013). Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act Retrieved June 26, 2013, from http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec 4.php
Justice, U. S. D. o. (n.d.). Introduction to Federal Voting Rights Laws Retrieved March 3, 2013, from http: //www .justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/intro. php
Kam, D., & Lantigua, J. (2012). Former Florida GOP leaders say voter supperssion was reason they pushed new election law Retrieved November 30, 2013, from http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/stateregional-govt-politics/early-voting- curbs-called-powerplay/nTFDy/
Kane, R. J. (2003). Social control in the metropolish: A community-level examination of the minority groupthreat hypothesis. Justice Quarterly, 20(2), 265-295.
Kendall, F. E. (2013). Understanding White Privilege (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Kerrison, E. M. (2008). The Color of Suffrage: Voter Disenfranchisement, Power Threat Hypotheses, and Modern Democracy. CONCEPT, 32, 1-15. Retrieved from
http://perseus.library.villanova.edu/index.php/concept/ar ticle/view/298/261
Keyssar, A. (2000). The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books.
Kimball, D. C., Kropf, M., & Battles, L. (2006). Helping America Vote? Election Administration, Partisanship, and Provisional Voting in the 2004 Election. Election Law Journal, 5(4), 447-461.
Legislatures, N. C. o. S. (2013a). About Us Retrieved November 27, 2013, from http://www.ncsl.org/aboutus.aspx
Legislatures, N. C. o. S. (2013b). Voter Identification Requirements Retrieved November 30, 2013, from http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-andcampaigns/voter-id.aspx
Legislatures, N. C. o. S. (2013c). Voter Identification Requirements Retrieved June 30, 2013, from http://www.ncsl.org/legislatureselections/elections/voter-id.aspx
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Loury, G. C. (2008). Race, Incarceration, and American Values. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American Apartheid. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nice, D. C. (1987). Federalism: The Politics of Intergovernmental Relations. New York: St. Martin Press.
Preuhs, R. R. (2001). State Felon Disenfranchisement Policy. Social Science Quarterly, 82(4), 733-748.
Robertson, D. B. (2012). Federalism and the Making of America. New York: Routledge.
Ruddell, R., & Urbina, M. G. (2004). Minority threat and punishment: A cross-national analysis. Justice Quarterly, 21(4), 903-931.
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy. The American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334-347.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Schriner, K. (2005). Constructing the Democratic Citizen: Idiocy and Insanity in American Suffrage Law. In A. L.
Schneider & H. M. Ingram (Eds.), Deserving and Entitled: Social Constructions and Public Policy (pp. 63-80). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Schwartz, J. (2013). Between the Lines of teh Voting Rights Act Opinion, NY Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/25/us/anno tated-supreme-court-decision-on-voting-rights-act.html
Shapiro, A. L. (1993). Challenging Criminal Disenfranchisement under the Voting Rights Act: A New Strategy The Yale Law Journal, 103(2), 537-566.
Shelby County v. Holder (U.S. Supreme Court 2013).
Shen, A. (2012). Florida Republicans Admit Voter Supprssion Was The Goal Of New Election Laws Retrieved June 29, 2013, from http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/26/1234171/ilor ida-republicans-admit-voter-suppression-was-the-goalof-new-election-laws/--.US hL4UNoEs.email
Steedman, M. D. (2012). Jim Crow Citizenship. New York: Routledge.
Stoughton, K. M. (2013). A New Approach to Voter ID Challenges: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. George Washington Law Review, 81, 1-44.
Stuart, G. (2004). Databases, Felons, and Voting: Bias and Partisanship of the Florida Felons List in the 2000 Elections. Political Science Quarterly, 119(3), 453-475.
Tokaji, D. P. (2006). The New Vote Denial: Where Election Reform Meets the Voting Rights Act. South Carolina Law Review, 53, 2-55.
Volsky, I. (2013). Ohio is Trying to 'Suppress the Voting Rights of African Americans,' Congresswoman Claims Retrieved November 30, 2013, from http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/30/3006031/ohi o-suppress-voting-rights-african-americanscongresswoman-claims/
Wacquant, L. (2001). Deadly Symbiosis. Punishment & Society, 3(1), 95-134.
Wacquant, L. (2010). Class, race & hyperincarceration in revanchist America. Daedalus, 139(3), 74-89.
Wood, E. L., & Trivedi, N. (2007). The Modern-Day Poll Tax: How Economic Sanctions Block Access to the Polls. Clearninghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, 41(1-2), 30-45.
Zamudio, M. M., Russell, C., Rios, F. A., & Bridgeman, J. L. (2011). Critical Race Theory Matters: Education and Ideology. New York: Routledge.
BRANDI BLESSETT
University of Central Florida
(1) Despite the use of the term 'citizen', women and the previously enslaved immigrants were left to fight against disenfranchisement for the next 50 years, which further established the delineations of full citizenship in the United States.
(2) In this paper, African American will not be used because it is not encompassing of the African diaspora represented in the United States (e.g. persons from Africa, the Caribbean islands, South America). Black, on the other hand, is inclusive to those persons or groups of a darker complexion that have "inherited experiences of oppression" (Zamudio, Russell, Rios, & Bridgeman, 2011, p. 21).
(3) Figure obtained from unknown, (n.d.). Policy Frameworks: Social Construction of Target Populations Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rmreardon/701/701%20PF%20SCTP.html
(4) This paper does not advocate for or against the federal structure. However, the arguments presented offer an explanation for the potential disproportionate racial effects of federalism.
(5) Earlier attempts at disenfranchisement were primarily targeted at Blacks, particularly in the late 19th and 20th centuries. However, as the United States has become more racially and ethnically diverse, Latinos are more strategically targeted for disenfranchisement in the 21st century. Therefore, depending on the category Blacks or Latinos may be specifically identified, or if broadly affected, the term 'minority' is used.
(6) For the lists of states that passed disenfranchisement policies, please see Appendix A.
(7) Although 21 disenfranchisement topics had been identified, state legislatures could have passed various iterations of the same policy over time. In this regard, a policy may have been counted more than once. For example, Virginia passed provisional ballot legislation in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Table 1
Disenfranchisement Policies by Effect on Target Population
Financial Creates Limits
Hardships Confusion Access to
the Ballot
Poll tax Purging voters Decreasing
from the rolls the number
of early
voting days
Voter ID Changes to voter Closing the
registration polls the
rules Sunday
before an
election
Restrictions Violence
to voter
assistance
(ESL)
Inconsistent Intimidation
felony
disenfranchisement
laws
All-white
primary
elections
Grandfather
clauses
Financial Dilute the Vote Subjective
Hardships Geographically Measures of
Eligibility
Poll tax Redistricting Literacy
tests
Voter ID Reapportionment Provisional
ballots
Gerrymandering Vouchers
of good
character
Annexation Disqualification
At-large for crimes of
districts moral turpitude
Table 2
Disenfranchisement laws passed from 2001-2010 (6)
Financial Creates Limits
Hardship Confusion Access to
the Ballot
Voters Absentee Absentee
Absence from Voting N=42 Voting N=42
work N =5
Voter ID All Absentee Absentee
Voters N=22 Voting Early Voting Early
Voting Voting
In-person In-Person
Voting N=23 Absentee
N=23
Voter ID New Polling Polling
Voters Only Places Places
N=18 Arrangements Arrangements
of/ of/
Procedures Procedures
at N=13 at N=13
Registration Polling Polling
ID Required Places Hours Places Hours
N=6 N=17 N=17
Polling Polling
Places Places
Locations Locations
N=25 N=25
Polling Polling
Places Places
Voting Voting
Center N=9 Center N=9
Precinct Registration
Definition Centralized
N=22 Voter List
N=28
Provisional Voter ID All
Voting N=32 Voters N=22
Registration Voter ID New
Deadline Voters Only
N=12 N=18
Voters Voters
Convicted Convicted
Felons N=27 Felons N=27
Voter Registration
Education/ Drives N=11
Information
N=34
Voter
Information/
Pamphlets
N=6
Financial Dilute the Subjective
Hardship Vote Measures of
Geographically Eligibility
Voters Electoral Challenges to
Absence from College N=13 Voters N=10
work N =5
Voter ID All Precinct Provisional
Voters N=22 Definition Voting N=32
N=22
Voter ID New Voters
Voters Only Convicted
N=18 Felons N=27
Registration Voters
ID Required Miscellaneous
N=6 Qualifications
N=16
N=number of states that passed disenfranchisement policies
Table 3
Disenfranchisement by Pre-clearance State from 2001-2010
State Number of policies passed
Alabama 6
Alaska 5
Arizona 5
Georgia 7
Louisiana 10
Mississippi 6
South Carolina 4
Texas 13
Virginia 14
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Blessett, Brandi |
|---|---|
| Publication: | Public Administration Quarterly |
| Article Type: | Report |
| Date: | Mar 22, 2015 |
| Words: | 13391 |
| Previous Article: | Professional capital: standards of performance that underlie interlocal cooperation. |
| Next Article: | A muted voice? Red tape and Latino political participation. |
| Topics: | |