Dissertation
Fragile protections, lasting struggles: Latino/a voters and the Voting Rights Act
University of Iowa
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), University of Iowa
Spring 2026
DOI: 10.25820/etd.008453
Abstract
How effective are the protections contained in the Voting Rights Act for minority voters? Existing research on the Act’s contemporary effects often suggests that some of its protections are no longer effective. I argue, however, that prior studies misunderstood the current goals and intentions of the provisions, or they assume that protections are uniformly and faithfully implemented across covered jurisdictions. By taking a broader approach to evaluating the Voting Rights Act, this dissertation shows that the Act remains necessary and that its protections–both past and present–continue to shape minority voters’ political incorporation.
The dissertation proceeds in two parts. The first part reexamines the consequences of Shelby County v. Holder (2013) by shifting attention from minority registration and turnout to minority descriptive representation. Although prior research has largely focused on participation, the removal of federal preclearance also opened the door to voting changes that may affect minority voters’ ability to elect their preferred candidates. To capture these effects, I use the National Association of Latino Elected Officials directory of Latino elected officials in the United States from 2000 to 2021 and estimate the effect of Shelby County v. Holder (2013) on local Latino descriptive representation. I find that the Supreme Court decision reduced Latino descriptive representation, indicating that preclearance helped protect minority voters from vote dilution.
The second part turns to Section 203’s language-assistance provisions. Although scholars have documented substantial variation in local compliance, this issue is ignored by current scholarship. In the second empirical chapter, I examine the determinants of compliance by drawing on the immigration incorporation literature. I find that compliance is shaped by the size of the limited-English population and county political conditions, but these effects vary by the type of coverage. More specifically, jurisdictions covered through statewide determinations are significantly less compliant than those covered individually and more responsive to local conditions.
The final empirical chapter examines whether Section 203 increases turnout among Spanish-speaking Latino voters and whether those effects depend on compliance. Using administrative voter data from Catalist, I show that Section 203 increases turnout among Spanish-speaking Latino voters, and that these effects are stronger in jurisdictions that comply with the law’s language-assistance requirements. Together, the findings demonstrate that the Voting Rights Act remains necessary in contemporary American politics and that its effectiveness depends not only on formal legal coverage but also on how those protections are implemented on the ground.
Details
- Title: Subtitle
- Fragile protections, lasting struggles: Latino/a voters and the Voting Rights Act
- Creators
- Stephanie Nicole Schmitt
- Contributors
- Rene R. Rocha (Advisor)Frederick J. Boehmke (Committee Member)Bernard L. Fraga (Committee Member)Caroline J. Tolbert (Committee Member)
- Resource Type
- Dissertation
- Degree Awarded
- Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), University of Iowa
- Degree in
- Political Science
- Date degree season
- Spring 2026
- DOI
- 10.25820/etd.008453
- Publisher
- University of Iowa
- Number of pages
- xi, 128 pages
- Copyright
- Copyright 2026 Stephanie Nicole Schmitt
- Language
- English
- Date submitted
- 04/15/2026
- Description illustrations
- Illustrations, graphs, charts, tables
- Description bibliographic
- Includes bibliographical references (pages 107-119).
- Public Abstract (ETD)
The Voting Rights Act was created to protect minority voters from discrimination and to ensure equal access to the political process. But today, many scholars, judges, and policymakers question whether these protections are still needed. This dissertation examines whether key parts of the Voting Rights Act still make a difference for minority voters in the United States.
I focus on two important parts of the law. First, I study the impact of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which removed a major federal protection that had required some jurisdictions with histories of discrimination to get federal approval before changing election rules. I show that after this decision, Latino representation in local office declined, suggesting that this protection helped minority communities maintain political access.
Second, I examine Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires certain jurisdictions to provide language assistance to voters who have limited-English proficiency. I find that these protections can increase political participation among Spanish-speaking Latino voters, but their success depends on whether local election officials actually follow the law. In many places, compliance is uneven, and some types of jurisdictions are less likely than others to provide the required assistance.
Taken together, the findings show that the Voting Rights Act remains important for protecting minority voters today. They also show that legal protections alone are not enough: their effects depend on whether governments implement them in practice. This research contributes to ongoing debates about voting rights, election policy, and the future of federal protections for minority political participation.
- Academic Unit
- Political Science
- Record Identifier
- 9985176872402771
Metrics
1 Record Views