IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v116y2022i3p791-806_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enfranchisement and Incarceration after the 1965 Voting Rights Act

Author

Listed:
  • EUBANK, NICHOLAS
  • FRESH, ADRIANE

Abstract

The 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) fundamentally changed the distribution of electoral power in the US South. We examine the consequences of this mass enfranchisement of Black people for the use of the carceral state—police, the courts, and the prison system. We study the extent to which white communities in the US South responded to the end of Jim Crow by increasing the incarceration of Black people. We test this with new historical data on state and county prison intake data by race (~1940–1985) in a series of difference-in-differences designs. We find that states covered by Section 5 of the VRA experienced a differential increase in Black prison admissions relative to those that were not covered and that incarceration varied systematically in proportion to the electoral threat posed by Black voters. Our findings indicate the potentially perverse consequences of enfranchisement when establishment power seeks—and finds—other outlets of social and political control.

Suggested Citation

  • Eubank, Nicholas & Fresh, Adriane, 2022. "Enfranchisement and Incarceration after the 1965 Voting Rights Act," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 116(3), pages 791-806, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:116:y:2022:i:3:p:791-806_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055421001337/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Weiss, Amanda, 2024. "How Much Should We Trust Modern Difference-in-Differences Estimates?," OSF Preprints bqmws, Center for Open Science.
    2. Daniel Freund & Samuel B. Hopkins, 2023. "Towards Practical Robustness Auditing for Linear Regression," Papers 2307.16315, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:116:y:2022:i:3:p:791-806_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.