The other day I was reading a conservative column and ventured for a few posts into the comments. In replay to a commenter pointing out the disparate impact of voting restriction policies the author of the column replied with the brief response that he didn’t think disparate impact proved racism. Since in the case of voting restrictions I do think there is a strong racist bias in there, I wondered what are the simple criteria one might use to distinguish between a disparate impact that is an unintended side-effect of the a policy and one that is the goal of the policy?

I think that there is a two-part test that pretty well answers that question.

First, was any attempt made to moderate the disparate impact once it was evident? If a political actor, individual or party, implements a plan and when that plan has a disparate impact on populations and they then take no action to reduce that disparate impact it is fairly safe to assume that at best the disparate impact is of no concern to the political actor. The policy can be judge to be apathetic at best and intention at worst.

Secondly if the policy is propagated to other regions is it modified or altered to avoid the disparate impact evidenced in the original implementation? When a policy becomes popular with a political community it is often copied by its admirers but it is also often adjusted for the perceived flaws of the original version. After all that is how improvements happen, the idea is expanded, deepened, and implementation improved, if throughout this process the disparate impact remains then it is very safe to conclude that the disparate impact is the objective of the policy.

With the voting rights restrictions passed in state after state by the GOP minorities consistently found it harder to vote. No GOP move was made to mitigate this effect and when the policy was copied in new jurisdictions the impact of minority communities remained.

It is understandable, from one point of view, why this occurs. On average the GOP captures only about 15% of the black vote, leaving a substation advantage to the Democratic Party. But instead of asking themselves why their message appeals to only a slim number of minorities, the GOP has instead implemented policies to reduce the numbers reaching the polls. Recently the new Democratic majority in the House has announced plans to make it easier for more voters to participate in our election, this idea, more people voting, has been labeled by the GOP Senate Majority leader as ‘a power grab.’

Unlike Mitch I believe in Democracy, the Franchise, the power of ideas, and that the best ideas can persuade.