Skip links

2016 President

Sabato's Crystal Ball

Why Section 5 is Still Needed: Racial Polarization and the Voting Rights Act in the 21st Century

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the latest challenge to what many consider the most important civil rights law of the past century — the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The challenge involves Section 5 of the law, which requires nine states — all but two in the South — to obtain prior approval from the Justice Department before implementing any changes in voting laws, regulations or procedures. The Voting Rights Act, including Section 5, was last renewed in 2006. At that time, overwhelming majorities of Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate voted to renew the law for 25 years based on extensive evidence of continued attempts to suppress or dilute the votes of racial and ethnic minorities in the states covered by Section 5. Despite this legislative record, the justice’s questions and comments during last week’s oral arguments suggest that there is a good chance that the court will vote to strike down Section 5. The five conservative justices on the court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, were clearly skeptical about the continued need for federal supervision of the states covered by Section Five. At one point, Roberts asked whether “the citizens in

Alan I. Abramowitz

REPUBLICAN ELECTORAL COLLEGE PLAN WOULD UNDERMINE DEMOCRACY

Republicans are struggling to right their ship after the defeat of 2012. The unfavorable demographic trends for the GOP that we describe in our new book, Barack Obama and the New America, have sunk in, and the party knows it must do something. We have solicited ideas ourselves, believing that it is vital for America to have vigorous party competition. You will see some of those ideas, offered by our readers and Twitter colleagues, here. But nestled among the constructive ideas is a truly rotten one, the proposal to fix and game the Electoral College to give a sizable additional advantage to the Republican nominee for president. We have asked Crystal Ball Senior Columnist Alan Abramowitz, Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory University, to examine the proposal and outline its likely effects. As we suspected, it would permit a GOP nominee to capture the White House even while losing the popular vote by many millions. This is not a relatively small Electoral College “misfire” on the order of 1888 or 2000. Instead, it is a corrupt and cynical maneuver to frustrate popular will and put a heavy thumb — the whole hand, in fact — on the

Alan I. Abramowitz

READERS REACT: FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

In last week’s Crystal Ball, we discussed the recent electoral troubles of the Republican Party and what it might take to improve the GOP’s chances in the future. We also asked our readers for their thoughts, and plenty took the opportunity to give us their input, ranging from mostly serious suggestions to a couple humorous ones. Some readers expressed the need for the GOP to diversify. Gary Cocker from Dundee, Scotland, suggested that Republicans adopt “their own version of the NFL’s ‘Rooney Rule’ to move away from male, pale, & stale candidates.” Similarly, Carrie Conko at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center stressed that Republicans “could learn how to talk to women and have more women candidates.” Many readers felt that Republicans should shift the party’s platform on social issues. William Agee of Bloomington, Indiana, viewed this as a starting point: “The GOP needs to recognize that there has been a shift in the social values of the country and that any mention of certain social issues only alienates potential voters versus gaining their support.” George Privon of California agreed, arguing that the GOP “should embrace liberty, social and fiscal.” Others preached realpolitik. Dan Conley of Chicago advised the GOP “to

UVA Center for Politics

A FLAT INAUGURAL

With the constitutionally-mandated presidential oath-taking falling on a Sunday this year, the country will follow tradition and have a private ceremony at the White House on Sunday, followed by the usual public spectacular on Monday at the Capitol. Even with a double-dose of oath-taking, few sense much excitement. It has always been thus for second terms. We know the president, we know most of his team, and we know the issues — more or less. Change is most definitely not in the air, especially after an election that — while Democratic in character — was status quo in result. And everyone is exhausted from the fiscal cliff face-off, probably an omen of the dispiriting, polarizing, poisonous debates to come. About the only surprise will be the contents of President Obama’s second inaugural speech. Four years ago, we offered an essay on inaugural addresses (reprinted below). In our view, there had been only two great addresses, Lincoln’s second and Kennedy’s only. Yes, there were famous lines produced by some others (for example, FDR’s, “All we have to fear is fear itself”). But by and large, a reading of all of the addresses at one sitting brought on a long winter’s nap;

Larry J. Sabato

What would a Republican renaissance look like?

As you read this, the U.S. House Republicans are meeting in retreat at Williamsburg, VA. While some would argue this is a good choice of locale to get back to the Republic’s colonial roots and fundamental principles, others will say it augurs poorly for the GOP’s need to embrace the future with new ideas and rejuvenating initiatives. In our new book on the 2012 elections, Barack Obama and the New America: The 2012 Election and the Changing Face of Politics (available here), we cover some of the challenges Republicans will need to overcome going forward. For instance, Nate Cohn of The New Republic — in his chapter on the country’s shifting demographics — makes the following observation about how the Republicans’ demographic advantage in midterm elections might be fading: It is hard to say if or when minorities might begin to participate in midterm elections at higher rates. Even so, demographic changes are already diminishing the white share of the midterm electorate, which declined from 81 percent in 2002, to 79 percent in 2006 and 77 percent in 2010. At that pace, the GOP will face a midterm electorate reminiscent of 2008 in 2014 and more like 2012 by 2018.

Larry J. Sabato

Post-election book to be released Tuesday

The University of Virginia Center for Politics is pleased to announce that our post-election book, Barack Obama and the New America: The 2012 Election and the Changing Face of Politics, will be released next Tuesday, Jan. 15. To order the book — which is published by Rowman and Littlefield — click here. Center for Politics Director Larry J. Sabato has brought together top journalists and academics from across the political spectrum to examine every facet of the 2012 election, and what its outcome will mean for the nation moving forward. In frank, accessible prose, each author offers insight that goes beyond the headlines, and dives into the underlying forces and shifts that drove the election from its earliest developments to its dramatic conclusion. This book features contributions from: — Alan Abramowitz, Crystal Ball Senior Columnist — Diana Owen, Georgetown University — Geoffrey Skelley, U.Va. Center for Politics — Jamelle Bouie, The American Prospect — James Campbell, SUNY-Buffalo — Kyle Kondik, U.Va. Center for Politics — Michael Toner, former FEC chairman — Nate Cohn, The New Republic — Rhodes Cook, Crystal Ball Senior Columnist — Robert Costa, National Review — Sean Trende, RealClearPolitics — Susan MacManus, University of South Florida

UVA Center for Politics

CLOSING THE BOOK ON 2012

Now that we have official election results from nearly every state, we wanted to offer some closing thoughts on election 2012. So here are 10 bite-sized nuggets, an appetizer for your holiday feasts. As a programming note, we’re taking the next two weeks off to recharge for the next cycle. Our next issue of the Crystal Ball will hit your inboxes on Thursday, Jan. 10, 2013. From all of us here at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, we wish our readers Happy Holidays and a Merry Christmas. — The Editors 1. Thank God it wasn’t close One of these days we’ll have another 2000-style election, where the result will be so tight that we will not know the outcome on the election evening — or for many days thereafter. Consider New York State — which a month and a half after the fact still has not certified its election results. (We remember Superstorm Sandy, but New Jersey was hit just as hard.) Even a critical New York state Senate race remains up in the air: George Amedore (R) has a 39-vote lead on Cecilia Tkaczyk (D), who is not conceding and is likely to appeal a court decision

Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik, and Geoffrey Skelley

12 FROM ’12: SOME TAKEAWAYS FROM A WILD ELECTION

Programming note: The Crystal Ball is taking the week off for Thanksgiving next week, but we’ll be back with another edition on Thursday, Nov. 29. So what can we glean from last week’s election? Plenty. Here are 12 takeaways from the 2012 election, presented in bite-sized pieces. One note: all vote totals and percentages used in this piece were as of Wednesday morning; the figures may change as states continue to finalize their results. 1. 2012 results mirror 2008 Crystal Ball Senior Columnist Alan Abramowitz points out in the chart below that how a state voted in 2008 was predictive of how it voted in 2012. The correlation between President Obama’s margin in 2012 and his margin in 2008 across all 50 states and D.C. is .96. In other words, you can closely predict Obama’s margin in 2012 almost perfectly from his margin in 2008; his drop from 2008 to 2012 was fairly uniform, and limited the number of electoral votes he lost from 2008. Chart 1: Comparing 2012 Obama vote to 2008 Note: Click on chart for larger version. The biggest outliers are Utah, where Obama did substantially worse than expected in 2012, and Alaska, where he did substantially better

Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik, and Geoffrey Skelley