The county oversees the administration of presidential elections and elects key officials such as sheriffs, school principals, and election administrators. As such, they become an important unit of political organization. As The Washington Post reported, critics of the move to divide Maricopa County see it as an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of elections held at the county level. Counties are more likely to legally vote Republican or run by election officials who support attempts to deem future elections rigged.
in my research, analyzed the history of county division in the Jim Crow era. There I discovered that newly created counties, such as those proposed in Arizona, were more likely to engage in electoral fraud. I know it hurts too.
Between the Civil War and the early 20th century, from 1865 to 1920, the Legislature created more than 300 counties and significantly adjusted the boundaries of the existing 1,000 counties. This geographic manipulation occurred at the same time the federal government stopped enforcing Reconstruction, allowing former Confederate states to give up democratic elections and the right to vote for African Americans. bottom. During this time, new counties were created to target black voters and officials, helping the Democrats, then allied with white supremacists, to solidify control of the South and establish Jim Crow’s dominance. rice field.
I used Newberry Library’s online atlas of historic county boundaries. Data on historical boundaries To detect changes in county boundaries and track the emergence of new counties from 1865 to 1920, we surveyed all counties in the United States. times.Then, using historical election and demographic data, new counties created and manipulated counties in the South were compared to other counties in the South to determine if they were politically or racially I checked whether I was targeted for any reason. compare The demographics, voter turnout, and partisanship of newly created counties and their dispossessed counties can determine whether geographic changes have been made with racial and political factors in mind. , also examined whether these changes would benefit the political party that controls that state’s legislature.
Jim Crow’s party changed county lines to the disadvantage of black voters
In the years leading up to Jim Crow in the South, Democratic state legislatures disproportionately “stuffed” black voters into new counties, thus concentrating electoral influence in a few political units, leading to statewide It turns out that it reduces voting power.
The new counties had a much higher proportion of black residents than the counties that were split or adjusted to create new counties. Only 20%, but most of the newer counties were between 20% and 75% black residents, while the older counties remained disproportionately white.
Putting all minority groups into a single county or district, what congressional gerrymandering scholars call “packing,” served several purposes, much like Arizona does today. First, new counties likely to vote in line with the legislature’s political goals — Jim Crow Southern Democrats, modern-day Arizona Republicans — elected more like-minded political officers. , proving that the election result is in favor of the state. state legislature. Second, new counties with densely populated nonwhite populations can police in ways that discourage voting or manipulate results for fraudulent results.
The new county was a hotbed of electoral fraud
As expected, a survey of the new counties created south of Jim Crow found that the new counties voted Democratic at a higher rate than expected based on their past voting behavior. Given the new county’s large black population, my analysis predicted that the Democrat would get only a low voter turnout of zero to 50% for him. Republican neighborhoods not only report greater support for Democrats (60-100%) after being moved to new counties, but also support rates unlikely to be generated by legitimate elections. increase.
Nevertheless, the new county voted almost entirely Democratic. In a county he has a party with 100% of the vote is a clear sign of wrongdoing, while winning just under 100% indicates a lack of legitimate political competition. The fact that these results occur in a disproportionately populated area of black Americans and Republican voters makes it easier to suppress black voters and to perpetrate serious political manipulation and fraud. indicates that the county was changed because of
Over the past half-century, Southern Democratic legislatures have overseen these county changes hundreds of times. Only about 8% of new counties elected by democratically-dominated legislatures won Republicans in the next election cycle. Moreover, when black officials moved to new counties, they lost their jobs at a faster rate than black officials who were not targeted by geographic manipulation.
Dismantling Maricopa County Using Jim Crow’s Playbook
The plan to divide Maricopa County is an old trick of America’s anti-democratic movement. Although the number of new counties created by the state legislature plummeted in the late 20th century, states still have the power to redraw their internal boundaries. As national politicians pressure states to provide illegal election results, more and more state legislatures may consider creating new counties.
Michael Greenberger (@m_greenberger) is a PhD candidate in political science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research focuses on political development and elections in America.
