Guy-Uriel E. Charles

Congressional Representation of Black Interests: Recognizing the Importance of Stability

The relationship between black constituency size and congressional support for black interests has two important attributes: magnitude and stability. Although previous research has examined the first characteristic, scant attention has been directed at the second. This article examines the relationship between district racial composition and congressional voting patterns with a particular emphasis on the stability of support across different types of votes and different types of districts. We hypothesize that, among white Democrats, the influence of black constituency size will be less stable in the South, owing in part to this regions more racially divided constituencies. Examining LCCR scores from the 101st through 103rd Congress, we find that this expectation is largely confirmed. We also find that, among Republicans, the impact of black constituency size is most stable—albeit negligible in size—in the South. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for the relative merits of “influence districts” and “majority minority” districts.

'Not that Smart': Sonia Sotomayor and the Construction of Merit

The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court in 2009 was criticized as sacrificing merit on the altar of identity politics. According to critics, Sotomayor was simply “not that smart”. For some conservative critics, her selection illustrated the costs of affirmative action policies, in that this particular choice was going to produce a lower quality Supreme Court. For liberal critics, many were concerned that the President, by selecting Sotomayor, was squandering an opportunity to appoint an intellectual counterweight to conservative justices like Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Using a set of basic measures of judicial merit, such as publication and citation rates for the years 2004-06, when Sotomayor was on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, we compare her performance to that of her colleagues on the federal appeals courts. Sotomayor matches up well. She might turn out to be more of a force on the Court than the naysayers predicted.

Introduction: The Future of Elections Scholarship

Race, Reform, and the Regulation of the Electoral Process: Recurring Puzzles in American Democracy is the first volume in Cambridge University Press’s Cambridge Studies in Election Law and Democracy series. It offers a critical reevaluation of three fundamental and interlocking themes in American democracy: the relationship between race and politics; the performance and reform of election systems; and the role of courts in regulating the political process. This edited volume features contributions from some of the leading voices in election law and social science. The authors address the recurring questions for American democracy and identify new challenges for the twenty-first century. They consider not just where elections scholarship and electoral policy are headed, but also suggest where scholarship and policy ought to go in the next two decades. The book thus provides intellectual guideposts for future scholarship and policy making. Most of the democratic reform during the twentieth century – and certainly the most important reform – has related to the central subject of race. Because electoral reform and regulation of the political process have been viewed largely through the prism of race, election law and reform have been framed largely in rights-based terms. Consistent with the civil-rights paradigm, courts emerged as the primary regulatory agents of American democracy and served as the vehicle through which much of the reform of American representative institutions has occurred. During the last fifty years, courts have helped achieve progressive reform on racial equality, and these successes have legitimated the regulatory role of courts in the political process. As American democracy has matured and racial politics have evolved, however, it may be time to consider these central themes of race, reform, and regulation in different terms. With respect to racial progress, America is increasingly a multiracial society, and even the status of African Americans within American politics has changed. The approach that was effective when black-white relations and de jure discrimination were the dominant paradigms may require retooling as we consider

Mixing Metaphors: Voting, Dollars, and Campaign Finance Reform

NOTWITHSTANDING THE CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE’S preoccupation with terrorism, the economy, and corporate scandals, the esoteric and seemingly impenetrable subject of campaign finance reform has remarkably found its way upon the political agenda. Congress has debated and passed a campaign finance reform statute, which, as is the destiny of all important public policy questions, is currently wending its way to the Supreme Court for that body’s constitutional wisdom. Thus, it appears as if campaign finance issues will be with us for a long time to come. As such, Professors Ackerman and Ayres’s thoughtful and provocative book, Voting with Dollars: A New Paradigm for Campaign Finance,1 is certainly timely and relevant. Moreover, Voting with Dollars is easy to read, the chapters are relatively short, and the ideas are presented lucidly and argued persuasively.2 It is also written in a style that does not eschew technical concepts but avoids arcane language. The resulting product is a book that remarkably speaks to policymakers (to whom the book seems to have been primarily directed), academics, practitioners, and all relatively informed readers.3 The book merges two ideas previously presented separately by the authors—a twist on public funding by Ackerman4 and anonymity in campaign contributions by Ayres.5 The paradigm shift referenced in the book’s title is the conception that campaign contributions are akin to voting. According to the authors, some of the rules that apply to the franchise, specifically equality and anonymity, should also apply to campaign finance. Voting with Dollars is quite persuasive and particularly so when the authors’ arguments are taken on their own

Racial Identity, Electoral Structures, and the First Amendment Right of Association

This article develops a provocative approach for thinking about the role of race in democratic politics. I identify the Supreme Courts descriptive and normative struggles with racial identity, which have led many on the Court to question the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. I rely upon the social identity literature in social psychology, as well as the race and politics literature in political science, to demonstrate empirically the relationship between racial and political identity. I then use the right of assciation, particularly as developed by the Supreme Court in the party and ballot access cases, to argue that the First Amendment protects the right of votes of color to associate as voters of color where race and political identity are correlated. In so doing, I characterize the Courts attempt to grasp the proper role of race in democratic politics as a deeper struggle between equality and liberty values. I conclude by suggesting a framework for balancing liberty and equality concerns in the design of electoral institutions.