DOCSLIB.ORG

Racial Identity, Attitudes, and Participation in Brazil, South Africa, and the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Racial Identity, Attitudes, and Participation in Brazil, South Africa, and the United States UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles The Political Psychology of Race in Comparative Perspective: Racial Identity, Attitudes, and Participation in Brazil, South Africa, and the United States A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Fabr´ıcio Mendes Fialho 2017 c Copyright by Fabr´ıcio Mendes Fialho 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Political Psychology of Race in Comparative Perspective: Racial Identity, Attitudes, and Participation in Brazil, South Africa, and the United States by Fabr´ıcio Mendes Fialho Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Los Angeles, 2017 Professor David O. Sears, Chair In this dissertation, I investigate why race is a salient political cleavage in some societies but not in others. Focusing on three countries marked by racial inequality but that differ in their racial dynamics – Brazil, South Africa, and the United States – I examine why the their racial formation processes resulted in strongly politicized racial identities in the two latter cases but not in the former. I advance a theoretical argument that emphasizes the political roots of the development salient racial identities in these countries. I contend that, when a nation formation process has a built- in emphasis on racial hierarchies and prejudice and the state apparatus is employed for the en- forcement of racial group boundaries in order to enact discriminatory policies against subordinate groups, this process unintentionally contributes to the formation of group consciousness among the members of political minorities, to reinforcement of major social cleavages, and to the emergence of political actors demanding social change. Apartheid in South Africa and the Jim Crow laws in the Southern United States, in using the state to oversee racial boundaries and to implement discriminatory practices against Blacks (and Coloureds, in the South African case) in favor of their White populations, fostered the development of strong group identities that ended up being crucial for the struggle against and eventual breakdown of those segregationist social systems. Brazil has not experienced legal forms of racial discrimination or segregation since the end of slavery in the late nineteenth and has celebrated race-mixing as a core element of its national identity, which ii resulted in permeable group boundaries and in the lack of consistent racial group identities. To test this hypothesis empirically, I analyze data from cross-national surveys as the World Values Survey, the International Social Survey Programme, and the Social Hubble to assess group differences in perceptions of discrimination, political trust, and participation in political acts and voluntary organizations. Findings indicate the persistence of robust differences in institutional trust and participation between race groups in South Africa and the United States but not in Brazil. Results on perceived discrimination show that non-Whites do report higher levels of perceived dis- crimination compared to Whites yet the group gap is conditional on the context the type of discrim- ination. Importantly, results from Brazil and South Africa, when analyzed jointly are suggestive that group-levels of perceived discrimination cannot account for the the lack of group differences in political attitudes and behavior in Brazil and the political salience of race in South Africa. Prior literature is corroborated by findings for the United States. Overall, results support the theoretical claim that the politicization of racial identities is depen- dent on contextual conditions such as the existence of strong social cleavages and the enforcement of group boundaries by the state. Once politicized, those identities have important political conse- quences. iii The dissertation of Fabr´ıcio Mendes Fialho is approved. Stanley R. Bailey Lorrie Frasure-Yokley Daniel N. Posner David O. Sears, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2017 iv To Mark Q. Sawyer v TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 1.1 Setting the Puzzle...................................1 1.2 Why Brazil, South Africa, and the United States? A Brief Historic Digression...3 1.3 Group boundaries and racial identity.........................5 1.3.1 Nation-building and racial groups......................5 1.3.2 Social identity and the permeability of boundaries.............. 10 1.4 Forging and Mobilizing Racial Identities....................... 12 1.4.1 The argument................................. 15 1.5 Outline of chapters.................................. 16 2 Perceived Discrimination :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 19 2.1 Perceiving discrimination............................... 21 2.1.1 Some consequences of perceived discrimination............... 22 2.1.2 Who perceives discrimination........................ 23 2.2 Data and methods................................... 26 2.2.1 Samples.................................... 26 2.2.2 Measures of perceived discrimination.................... 27 2.2.3 Racial classification............................. 28 2.2.4 Folk categories and cultural identities.................... 30 2.2.5 Sociodemographics.............................. 31 2.2.6 Identity salience............................... 31 2.2.7 Intergroup contact.............................. 32 vi 2.2.8 Computational procedures.......................... 32 2.3 Findings........................................ 33 2.3.1 Racial discrimination............................. 33 2.3.2 Everyday Discrimination........................... 43 2.3.3 Are everyday and racial discrimination related?............... 54 2.4 Discussion....................................... 57 3 Institutional Trust ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 63 3.1 Race and political trust................................ 68 3.2 Measuring trust in public institutions......................... 72 3.3 Testing for measurement invariance......................... 74 3.3.1 Confirmatory factor analytic models for ordinal variables.......... 75 3.3.2 Levels of measurement invariance...................... 77 3.3.3 Model fit................................... 80 3.4 Data and methods................................... 82 3.4.1 World Values Survey datasets........................ 82 3.4.2 Measures of trust in institutions....................... 84 3.4.3 Racial classification............................. 85 3.4.4 Validation datasets.............................. 86 3.4.5 Missing data imputation........................... 87 3.4.6 Computational procedures.......................... 88 3.5 Results......................................... 88 3.5.1 Correlation analysis, variables selection, and measurement model........................... 88 3.5.2 Descriptive analysis............................. 96 vii 3.5.3 Tests of measurement invariance using the WVS5.............. 99 3.5.4 Latent mean differences among groups, WVS5............... 105 3.5.5 Validation analysis.............................. 107 3.6 Discussion....................................... 112 3.7 Appendix: Polychoric correlations.......................... 117 4 Social and Political Participation ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 126 4.1 Measuring Participation................................ 131 4.1.1 The political and the non-political...................... 131 4.1.2 Modes of participation............................ 133 4.2 Data and Methods................................... 136 4.2.1 Datasets.................................... 136 4.2.2 Measures of political participation...................... 137 4.2.3 Race classification.............................. 139 4.2.4 Sociodemographics and interest in politics.................. 140 4.2.5 Missing data imputation........................... 140 4.2.6 Computational procedures.......................... 141 4.3 Findings........................................ 142 4.3.1 Group-level differences in political participation.............. 142 4.3.2 Sociodemographic variables and race.................... 147 4.3.3 Regression analysis.............................. 157 4.4 Discussion....................................... 163 5 Conclusion ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 165 Bibliography :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 171 viii LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Legal racial segregation and racial classification................... 14 2.1 Average perceived racial discrimination and race.................. 34 2.2 Folk categories, cultural identities, and perceived racial discrimination........ 38 2.3 Average perceived everyday discrimination by race................. 45 2.4 Folk categories, cultural identities, and perceived everyday discrimination...... 48 2.5 Predicted probabilities of perceiving discrimination.................. 56 3.1 Two-domain model of trust in institutions...................... 95 3.2 Trust in Order and in Political institutions...................... 97 3.3 Latent means, WVS5................................. 106 3.4 Latent factor means, validation datasets....................... 113 4.1 Participation in political action............................ 143 4.2 Participation in voluntary organizations....................... 145 4.3 Education and political activism, ISSP........................ 148 4.4 Education and political activism, WVS5....................... 149 4.5 Education and organizational membership, WVS5.................. 150 4.6 Age and political activism, ISSP........................... 152 4.7 Age and political activism, WVS5.........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ch. C/D Pt-54,56,5^ for Reference
    Census REF HA 201 1980 .A566x v. 1 ch. C/D pt-54,56,5^ For Reference Not to be taken from this room ^1 M "j : " w ; Ji 1980 census of population. Characteristics of the population. Detailed Social and Economic Characteristics. PC80-1- HA201 50673010240912 Characteristics. Guam C/D54 1980 .A566 1980 census of population. Characteristics of the population. Detailed Social and Economic Characteristics. American PC80-1- HA201 50673010240912 Samoa C/D56 1980 .A566 1980 census of population. Characteristics of the population. Detailed Social and Economic Characteristics. Northern PC80-1- HA201 50673010240912 Mariana Islands C/D57A 1980 .A566 1980 census of population. Characteristics of the population. Detailed Social and Economic Characteristics. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands excluding PC80-1- HA201 50673010240912 the Northern Mariana Islands C/D57B 1980 .A566 L BUREAI THE e-3 PC80-1-C/D54 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION Guam Detailed Social and Economic Characteristics GUAM Census of Population U.S. Department of Commerce BUREAU OF THE CENSUS UREAU OF THE CENSUS LIBRARY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Census Bureau Library http://www.archive.org/details/1980censusofpopu80154un &F //A /9Sd 4&6S i/. / &, r/)/• &/, ^J Census of Population VOLUME 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION CHAPTER C/D Detailed Social and Economic Characteristics PART 54 GUAM PC80-1-C/D54 Issued November 1984 4&"**% STT U.S. Department of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary Clarence J. Brown, Deputy Secretary ?EAU OF T :NSUS Sidney Jones, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs LlBRAR\ BUREAU OF THE CENSUS John G. Keane, Director BUREAU OF THE CENSUS John G.
    [Show full text]
  • A Health Care Provider's Guide to the 2020 Census Why Does the Census Matter? the United States Census Is How the Federal Government Counts Residents in Each State
    A Health Care Provider's Guide to the 2020 Census Why Does the Census Matter? The United States Census is how the federal government counts residents in each state. This population count determines how many U.S. Representatives in the Congress each state is allotted. The Census also informs distribution of federal funding for programs, including health care, education, food and nutrition, housing, and child care. When is the Census?0 Residents will begin receiving information about the Census in March. While the Census can be completed anytime during the months of April and May, it is meant to provide a picture of who lived in the country on April 1, 2020, which is called "Census Day." During the month of March, people will receive an invitation to complete the questionnaire online, by phone, or via mail. Starting in May 2020, Census workers will begin visiting homes that have not submitted a questionnaire to collect data in person. Who is Counted? EVERYONE counts in the Census, regardless of documentation status, race, ethnicity, or income. This is a snapshot of who is residing in the United States on April 1. It includes medical trainees, every single young child, including babies born on April 1, people experiencing homelessness, etc. How Do You Complete the Questionnaire? In 2020, all residents will be able to complete the questionnaire online for the first time. The invitation will include the link. The questionnaire can also be completed via phone or mail if desired. The form will be available in multiple languages. Phone support will also be available in 12 languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Calling on the Census Bureau
    September 3, 2020 Dr. Steven Dillingham Director United States Census Bureau 4600 Silver Hill Road Washington, DC 20233 Dear Dr. Dillingham: This letter is to inquire about the U.S. Census Bureau’s plans for accurately counting our country’s population in the 2020 Census. In California, nearly 15 percent of our residents remain uncounted, many in historically undercounted communities at risk of losing federal funding and resources. In light of the challenges created by COVID-19, the fires burning across California, and the recent decision to end counting operations early, we ask that you provide additional detail about how a complete count will be achieved. It is our understanding that with the shortened counting timeline, Census Bureau workers will need to visit 8 million more homes nationwide than in 2010, in just seven weeks instead of ten weeks. Data accuracy and review procedures for processing apportionment counts have also been reduced from six months to three months. Additional obstacles caused by COVID-19 include a higher number of people experiencing homelessness—an historically undercounted population—as well as difficulties with hiring and retention of census workers. Given these significant barriers to a fair and accurate census, we would appreciate answers to the following questions. With in-person counting operations cut short, the Census Bureau will likely need to utilize administrative records and statistical techniques to complete the enumeration. Do you now anticipate any changes in the number of households that will
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Census Barriers, Attitudes, and Motivators Study Survey Report
    2020 Census Barriers, Attitudes, and Motivators Study Survey Report A New Design for the 21st Century January 24, 2019 Version 2.0 Prepared by Kyley McGeeney, Brian Kriz, Shawnna Mullenax, Laura Kail, Gina Walejko, Monica Vines, Nancy Bates, and Yazmín García Trejo 2020 Census Research | 2020 CBAMS Survey Report Page intentionally left blank. ii 2020 Census Research | 2020 CBAMS Survey Report Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 Background .............................................................................................................................. 5 CBAMS I ......................................................................................................................................... 5 CBAMS II ........................................................................................................................................ 6 2020 CBAMS Survey Climate ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Degree Attainment for Black Adults: National and State Trends Authors: Andrew Howard Nichols and J
    EDTRUST.ORG Degree Attainment for Black Adults: National and State Trends Authors: Andrew Howard Nichols and J. Oliver Schak Andrew Howard Nichols, Ph.D., is the senior director of higher education research and data analytics and J. Oliver Schak is the senior policy and research associate for higher education at The Education Trust Understanding the economic and social benefits of more college-educated residents, over 40 states during the past decade have set goals to increase their state’s share of adults with college credentials and degrees. In many of these states, achieving these “degree attainment” goals will be directly related to their state’s ability to increase the shares of Black and Latino adults in those states that have college credentials and degrees, particularly as population growth among communities of color continues to outpace the White population and older White workers retire and leave the workforce.1 From 2000 to 2016, for example, the number of Latino adults increased 72 percent and the number of Black adults increased 25 percent, while the number of White adults remained essentially flat. Nationally, there are significant differences in degree attainment among Black, Latino, and White adults, but degree attainment for these groups and the attainment gaps between them vary across states. In this brief, we explore the national trends and state-by-state differences in degree attainment for Black adults, ages 25 to 64 in 41 states.2 We examine degree attainment for Latino adults in a companion brief. National Degree Attainment Trends FIGURE 1 DEGREE ATTAINMENT FOR BLACK AND WHITE ADULTS, 2016 Compared with 47.1 percent of White adults, just 100% 30.8 percent of Black adults have earned some form 7.8% 13.4% 14.0% 30.8% of college degree (i.e., an associate degree or more).
    [Show full text]
  • Using Sex and Gender in Survey Adjustment
    Using sex and gender in survey adjustment Lauren Kennedy∗ Katharine Khannay Daniel Simpsonz Andrew Gelmanx September 30, 2020 Abstract Accounting for sex and gender characteristics is a complex, structural challenge in social science research. While other methodology papers consider issues surrounding appropriate measurement, we consider how gender and sex impact adjustments for non-response patterns in sampling and survey estimates. We consider the problem of survey adjustment arising from the recent push toward measuring sex or gender as a non-binary construct. This is challenging not only in that response categories differ between sex and gender measurement, but also in that both of these attributes are potentially multidimensional. In this manuscript we reflect on similarities to measuring race/ethnicity before considering the ethical and statistical implications of the options available to us. We do not conclude with a single best recommendation but rather an awareness of the complexity of the issues surrounding this challenge and the benefits and weaknesses of different approaches. 1 Introduction There may be no good way to resolve sex and gender measurement in surveys. However, it is an important problem both structurally and to individuals. While the measurements might seem similar, there is no simple mapping from sex to gender that works for the entire population. This is true for binarized gender and sex categories but becomes especially urgent once we consider intersex, transgender, nonbinary, and other categories. This affects ∗Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics, Monash University yDepartment of Sociology, Columbia University zDepartment of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto. xDepartment of Statistics and Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York.
    [Show full text]
  • 18-966 Department of Commerce V. New York (06/27
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2018 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ET AL. v. NEW YORK ET AL. CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 18–966. Argued April 23, 2019—Decided June 27, 2019 In order to apportion congressional representatives among the States, the Constitution requires an “Enumeration” of the population every 10 years, to be made “in such Manner” as Congress “shall by Law di- rect,” Art. I, §2, cl. 3; Amdt. 14, §2. In the Census Act, Congress del- egated to the Secretary of Commerce the task of conducting the de- cennial census “in such form and content as he may determine.” 13 U. S. C. §141(a). The Secretary is aided by the Census Bureau, a sta- tistical agency in the Department of Commerce. The population count is also used to allocate federal funds to the States and to draw electoral districts. The census additionally serves as a means of col- lecting demographic information used for a variety of purposes. There have been 23 decennial censuses since 1790. All but one be- tween 1820 and 2000 asked at least some of the population about their citizenship or place of birth.
    [Show full text]
  • Census in the Field: Frequently Asked Questions (Faqs)
    Census in the Field: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 1. Will the Census Bureau allow multiple census responses to be submitted from one IP address? a. Response: Submitting multiple responses from one IP address is fine because the COVER OPTION 3: Bureau anticipates that this will happen. That’s why the Bureau can rely so heavily on COVER libraries and other organizations to help Get Out the Count. There currently is not a no design (C3) limit for the number of responses per device or per IP address. 2. Can community organizations establish stationary questionnaire assistance centers (e.g., provide tablets/laptops for people to fill out the census form)? What guidelines and support will the Bureau provide for those organizations? a. Response: Organizations are allowed to create stationary questionnaire assistance centers; however, organizations should not collect census data. There will be more guidance coming from the Census Bureau later this Fall. (https://2020census.gov/en/partners/outreach-materials.html)1 3. Will the Census Bureau be providing official branding guidance and materials for CBOs and CCCs that create local questionnaire assistance centers (QACs)? a. Response: Guidance is available on how to co-brand with the Census Bureau on outreach materials. If a CBO is creating a location for self-response without official assistance or representation from the Census Bureau, then that CBO is not permitted to use official Census Bureau branding. Please note that QAC sites with no official Census Bureau partnership will not be permitted to use Bureau-branded materials and do not receive Title 13 protections. (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/2020-census/plannin g-management/promo-print-materials.html)2 4.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 CENSUS PROGRAM INTERNAL MEMORANDUM SERIES: 2019.23.I
    The memorandum and attached document(s) was prepared for Census Bureau internal use. If you have any questions regarding the use or dissemination of the information, please contact the Stakeholder Relations Staff at [email protected]. 2020 CENSUS PROGRAM INTERNAL MEMORANDUM SERIES: 2019.23.i Date: May 31, 2019 MEMORANDUM FOR: The Record From: Deborah M. Stempowski (Signed May 31, 2019) Chief, Decennial Census Management Division Subject: 2020 Census Evaluation: Evaluating Privacy and Confidentiality Concerns Study Plan Contact: Jennifer Reichert Decennial Census Management Division 301-763-4298 [email protected] This memorandum releases the final version of the 2020 Census Evaluation: Evaluating Privacy and Confidentiality Concerns Study Plan, which is part of the 2020 Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments (CPEX). For specific content related questions, you may also contact the authors: Aleia Clark Fobia Jennifer Hunter Childs Matthew Virgile Center for Behavioral Science Methods Center for Behavioral Science Methods Center for Behavioral Science Methods 301-763-4075 301-763-4927 301-763-4745 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Jessica Holzberg Kelly Mathews Center for Behavioral Science Methods Decennial Statistical Studies Division 301-763-2298 301-763-5639 [email protected] [email protected] census.gov 2020 Census Evaluation Evaluating Privacy and Confidentiality Concerns Study Plan Aleia Clark Fobia, CBSM Jessica Holzberg, CBSM Jennifer Hunter Childs, CBSM Kelly Mathews, DSSD Matthew Virgile, CBSM 5/31/19 Version 3 Page intentionally left blank. <<Evaluating Privacy and Confidentiality Concerns, Version 3.1>> Table of Contents I.
    [Show full text]
  • A Complete 2020 Census Count in New York State
    A ROADMAP TO ACHIEVING A COMPLETE 2020 CENSUS COUNT IN NEW YORK STATE 2020 A ROADMAP TO ACHIEVING A COMPLETE 2020 CENSUS COUNT IN NEW YORK STATE CENSUS FINAL REPORT NEW YORK STATE COMPLETE COUNT COMMISSION OCTOBER 2019 1 A ROADMAP TO ACHIEVING A COMPLETE 2020 CENSUS COUNT IN NEW YORK STATE 2020 CENSUS 2 A ROADMAP TO ACHIEVING A COMPLETE 2020 CENSUS COUNT IN NEW YORK STATE A ROADMAP TO ACHIEVING A COMPLETE 2020 CENSUS COUNT IN NEW YORK STATE FINAL REPORT NEW YORK STATE COMPLETE COUNT COMMISSION CENSUS OCTOBER 2019 i A ROADMAP TO ACHIEVING A COMPLETE 2020 CENSUS COUNT IN NEW YORK STATE 2020 CONTENTS Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... ii Letter from NYS Complete Count Co-Chairs .............................................................................................................................1 Members of the Commission ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Risks to a Complete 2020 Census Count ..................................................................................................................................7 Language
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850 to 2000
    Population Division HISTORICAL CENSUS STATISTICS ON THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES: 1850 TO 2000 By Campbell Gibson and Kay Jung Working Paper No. 81 HISTORICAL CENSUS STATISTICS ON THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES: 1850 TO 2000 by Campbell Gibson and Kay Jung Population Division Working Paper No. 81 U.S. Census Bureau Washington, DC 20233 Date February, 2006 This report is released to inform interested parties of research and to encourage discussion. The views expressed on statistical, methodological, or technical issues are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau. Acknowledgments This working paper was prepared in Population Division. The authors thank Frank Hobbs, Cynthia Davis, Paul Mackun, and Phil Gbur for their review and comments. Abstract This working paper presents selected decennial census data on the foreign-born population of the United States from 1850 to 2000. Other reports on historical census statistics for the United States The following six reports present historical census statistics that are more detailed and/or more recent than historical census statistics published in reports from the decennial census of population or in Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1975a). Population of States and Counties of the United States: 1790 - 1990, by Richard L. Forstall. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996. Data for the 1900 to 1990 period are available also on the Census Bureau’s Internet site at <www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html>.
    [Show full text]
  • Opposition to Nomination of Cory Wilson to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
    United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 May 5, 2020 Re: Opposition to nomination of Cory Wilson to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Dear Senator: On behalf of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (hereinafter Lawyers’ Committee), we write to express our opposition to the nomination of Cory Wilson to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Lawyers’ Committee is a nonprofit civil rights organization founded in 1963 by the leaders of the American bar, at the request of President John F. Kennedy, to help defend the civil rights of racial minorities and low-income people. Mr. Wilson’s record advocating against voting rights and access to health care, as well as his expressions of racial hostility towards President Barack Obama, lead us to doubt his ability to serve as an impartial federal judge with an open mind on any civil rights issues impacting communities of color. As such, we oppose his nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Wilson’s advocacy against voting rights and access to health care has defined his career as a lawyer and politician. He has spent years touting disproven theories of widespread voter fraud in order to support voter ID laws that suppress voter turnout by people of color. Additionally, he has attacked efforts to prevent disenfranchisement and has attacked efforts to expand access to health care for low-income Mississippians. Mr. Wilson has also voted for unconstitutional restrictions on access to abortion. As the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a health crisis unlike any since 1918, impacting our elections and disproportionately killing African Americans, it is more important now than ever before that the right to vote and access to health care for all be protected rather than stripped away.
    [Show full text]