Item Details
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:769Hits:20885211Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

In Basket
  Journal Article   Journal Article
 

ID174468
Title ProperRule by Violence, Rule by Law
Other Title InformationLynching, Jim Crow, and the Continuing Evolution of Voter Suppression in the U.S.
LanguageENG
AuthorBrad Epperly ;  Epperly, Brad
Summary / Abstract (Note)Although restricting formal voting rights—voter suppression—is not uncommon in democracies, its incidence and form vary widely. Intuitively, when competing elites believe that the benefits of reducing voting by opponents outweigh the costs of voter suppression, it is more likely to occur. Internal political and state capacity and external actors, however, influence the form that voter suppression takes. When elites competing for office lack the ability to enact laws restricting voting due to limited internal capacity, or external actors are able to limit the ability of governments to use laws to suppress voting, suppression is likely to be ad hoc, decentralized, and potentially violent. As political and state capacity increase and external constraints decrease, voter suppression will shift from decentralized and potentially violent to centralized and mostly non-violent. We illustrate our arguments by analyzing the transition from decentralized, violent voter suppression through the use of lynchings (and associated violence) to the centralized, less violent suppression of black voting in the post-Reconstruction South. We also place the most recent wave of U.S. state voter suppression laws into broader context using our theoretical framework.
`In' analytical NotePerspectives on Politics Vol. 18, No.3; Sep 2020: p.756 - 769
Journal SourcePerspectives on Politics 2020-09 18, 3
Key WordsRule by Law ;  U.S. ;  Voter ;  Rule by Violence