The Voting Rights Act, Shelby County, and Redistricting: Improving Estimates of Racially Polarized Voting in a Multiple-Election Context

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County has severely limited the power of the Voting Rights Act. I argue that Congressional attempts to pass a new coverage formula are unlikely to gain the necessary Republican support. Instead, I propose a new strategy that takes a “carrot and stick” approach. As the stick, I suggest amending Section 3 to eliminate the need to prove that discrimination was intentional. For the carrot, I envision a competitive grant program similar to the highly successful Race to the Top education grants. I argue that this plan could pass the currently divided Congress.

Without Congressional action, Section 2 is more important than ever before. A successful Section 2 suit requires evidence that voting in the jurisdiction is racially polarized. Accurately and objectively assessing the level of polarization has been and continues to be a challenge for experts. Existing ecological inference methods require estimating polarization levels in individual elections. This is a problem because the Courts want to see a history of polarization across elections.

I propose a new 2-step method to estimate racially polarized voting in a multi-election context. The procedure builds upon the Rosen, Jiang, King, and Tanner (2001) multinomial-Dirichlet model. After obtaining election-specific estimates, I suggest regressing those results on election-specific variables, namely candidate quality, incumbency, and ethnicity of the minority candidate of choice. This allows researchers to estimate the baseline level of support for candidates of choice and test whether the ethnicity of the candidates affected how voters cast their ballots.

Real-World Social Cognition: Context Effects in Face and Threat Processing

As borne out by everyday social experience, social cognition is highly dependent on context, modulated by a host of factors that arise from the social environment in which we live. While streamlined laboratory research provides excellent experimental control, it can be limited to telling us about the capabilities of the brain under artificial conditions, rather than elucidating the processes that come into play in the real world. Consideration of the impact of ecologically valid contextual cues on social cognition will improve the generalizability of social neuroscience findings also to pathology, e.g., to psychiatric illnesses. To help bridge between laboratory research and social cognition as we experience it in the real world, this thesis investigates three themes: (1) increasing the naturalness of stimuli with richer contextual cues, (2) the potentially special contextual case of social cognition when two people interact directly, and (3) a third theme of experimental believability, which runs in parallel to the first two themes. Focusing on the first two themes, in work with two patient populations, we explore neural contributions to two topics in social cognition. First, we document a basic approach bias in rare patients with bilateral lesions of the amygdala. This finding is then related to the contextual factor of ambiguity, and further investigated together with other contextual cues in a sample of healthy individuals tested over the internet, finally yielding a hierarchical decision tree for social threat evaluation. Second, we demonstrate that neural processing of eye gaze in brain structures related to face, gaze, and social processing is differently modulated by the direct presence of another live person. This question is investigated using fMRI in people with autism and controls. Across a range of topics, we demonstrate that two themes of ecological validity — integration of naturalistic contextual cues, and social interaction — influence social cognition, that particular brain structures mediate this processing, and that it will be crucial to study interaction in order to understand disorders of social interaction such as autism.