Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:43:55.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary

Tough Institutions in Colorblind Injustice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Bradley Palmquist
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is no small task to provide an account of voting rights in both the First and Second Reconstructions. It is hard to think of many with the combined expertise in both fields who could have pulled it off as well as J. Morgan Kousser has in Colorblind Injustice (1999).

Kousser has long been a historian and a social scientist. In his earlier work , such as The Shaping of Southern Politics (1974), Kousser was clearly one of the leading proponents and artful innovators in the use of quantitative methods in historical analysis: he did not merely import old ideas from quantitative social scientists. Now, in Colorblind Injustice, we see Kousser again combining his thorough and deft historian’s touch with insights from social scientific approaches.

The key explanatory theme in Colorblind Injustice, I believe, is captured in two terse sentences: “Culture is fragile. Institutions are tough” (366). From these premises come Kousser’s central ideas about how to explain the progress and retrogression of minority voting rights and why we should care so much about the set of Supreme Court rulings beginning with Shaw v.Reno in 1993.

Type
Symposium on J. Morgan Kousser’s Colorblind In justice: Minority Voting Rights and the Undoing of the Second Reconstruction
Information
Social Science History , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , summer 2000 , pp. 435 - 441
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 2000 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A. (1989)Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guinier, Lani (1994) The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kousser, J.Morgan (1974) The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kousser, J.Morgan (1999) Colorblind Injustice: Minority Voting Rights and the Undoing of the Second Reconstruction. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A., and C. R. Taylor, Rosemary (1996) “Political science and the three New Institutionalisms.” Political Studies 44: 936–57.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Johan P., Olsen (1984) “The New Institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life.” American Political Science Review 78: 734–49.Google Scholar
Robertson, David Brian (1993) “The return to history and the New Institutionalism in American political science.” Social Science History 17: 1–36.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers M. (1988) “Political jurisprudence, the ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the future of public law.” American Political Science Review 82: 89–106.Google Scholar