POL 168: Chican@/Latin@
Politics
Professor Brad Jones
Dept. of Political Science
UC-Davis
Today
• Latino Public Opinion
• Participation
Updated Analysis: Most Concern
Party Having Most Concern for Latinos
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2002
2004
2006
Year
REP
DEM
NO DIFF
2007
Republican Identifiers
Party Having Most Concern for Latinos: Republican Identifiers
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2002
2004
2006
Year
REP
DEM
NO DIFF
2007
Democratic Identifiers
Party Having Most Concern for Latinos: Democratic Identifiers
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2002
2004
2006
Year
REP
DEM
NO DIFF
2007
Independent Identifiers
Party Having Most Concern for Latinos: Independent Identifiers
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2002
2004
2006
Year
REP
DEM
NO DIFF
2007
Party Affiliation: 2002-2007
Party Affiliation, 2002-2007
50
45
40
Percentage
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2002
2004
2006
Year
REP
DEM
IND
2007
Information and Political Behavior
• Nicholson, Pantoja, Segura article
• What do we know about political information in the
general setting?
– Highly related to participation: the more one knows, the more
one is likely to participate.
• Main points in this article?
• Argument has typically been made that racial/ethnic
minorities are less informed.
– Why? SES issues; educational differences.
– These authors find relatively high levels of information on issues,
but this is not uniform.
– Suggests appeals to Latino vote cannot merely rely on symbols.
– Simply speaking Spanish will not work uniformly!
What do we know about Latinos?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Attitudes toward government?
Politicians?
Political Parties?
The Acculturation Issue?
Participation?
I M PLI CATI O N S
Mobilization? Courting the Latino Vote?
Voting Rights Act
• Monumental legislation with respect to voting and civil
liberties
• Has spawned many “landmark” Supreme Court decision
• Import
– Federalized authority over electoral process
• Original intent primarily focused on African-American
voting rights in the South
• 14th and 15th Amendments, in practice, were hard to
enforce
–
–
–
–
Enforcement Act of 1870
Force Act of 1871
Both repealed; essentially no enforcement until 1950s.
States Gone Wild (especially Southern States)
• Poll Taxes, Literacy Tests, Hostile Voting Locales
VRA of 1965
• The impetus begins in Kennedy Admin.
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srOvwG81Iw&feature=related
• Landmark legislation passed by the LBJ
administration in 1965.
• The VRA applied to specific areas:
– Where registration and turnout was less than 50
percent of the potential electorate.
– All the Southern states and Texas and Arizona were
“covered” by the VRA; counties in other states were
also covered (including CA)
VRA of 1965
• Section 2 of the VRA was crucial for minority
voting rights.
– Prohibited minority vote dilution
– Prohibited practices aimed at denying minorities an
unfair chance to vote.
• Section 5 equally crucial
– Required preclearance
– Direct hand of the federal government in the drawing
of congressional district lines
– The effect of proposed changes in “VRA covered”
areas was now a “live” issue.
Why Care About Majority Minority
Districting?
• Consider some public opinion data.
• “Descriptive Representation”
– To what extent are Latino/as represented by a
Latino/a?
– Does it matter?
• Pew 2004 National Survey of Latinos:
Politics and Civic Participation
Descriptive Representation
• “Latinos are more likely to vote if there are
Latinos on the ballot.” (Agree/Disagree)
Agree/Disagree: Likelihood of Voting with Latino
Candidate on Ballot
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
SA
A
D
SD
DK
Ref
Descriptive Representation
•
“Latino Voters are more likely to vote for a Latino candidate instead of a
non-Latino running for the same office if they have the same qualifications.”
(Agree/Disagree)
Agree/Disagree: Likelihood of Voting for Latino
Compared to Non-Latino
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
SA
A
D
SD
DK
Ref
Other Results
• 56 percent of respondents agree with the statement:
“Latino voters will usually pick a Latino candidate even if
there is a better qualified non-Latino running…”.
• 37 percent of respondents agree with the statement: “I
am more likely to vote if there are Latinos on the ballot.”
(i.e. most disagree)
• Implications of this?
• There are implications of descriptive representation and
the VRA
VRA
• Requires reauthorization, most recently
2006
• Mobile vs. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 (1980)
– Required plaintiffs to prove discriminatory
intent; a difficult task.
– Reauthorization in 1982 revised proof
requirement; requirement was now just to
show the results of discrimination.
VRA and Latino Voting
• 1975 Amendments to VRA
– Sec. 203 extended coverage to linguistic
minorities, thus expanding coverage.
– Asian, Alaskan natives, American Indians and
persons of Spanish Heritage
– Required native language electoral materials
in covered areas (given a threshold was met)
• VRA opens up possibility of “descriptive
representation” (recall last few slides)
VRA and Voting
• Latino Representation
– 5 in 1970; 21 currently
– Congressional Hispanic Caucus
• http://www.house.gov/baca/chc/history.shtml
– Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute
• http://www.chci.org/
– Why the increase?
– In part, redistricting efforts.
Redistricting
•
Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)
– Upheld constitutionality of majority-minority districts (50 percent or more)
– Implications?
•
What happened?
–
–
–
–
Claims of “racial gerrymandering.”
Challenges to Constitutionality of Districts
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
5-4 decision: equal protection violated because irregularly shaped districts
segregated races “for purposes of voting, without regard for traditional districting
principles…” (Shaw v. Reno)
– Bush v Vera (1996) and Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) have rolled back this
interpretation
– Race may be used as one of “several factors” in the creation of districts
•
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U. S. 399 (2006):
Texas “DeLay” plan violated the VRA in the 23rd district.
– Court Recognizes growing power of Latino vote, whose vote was diluted.
NC 12th
•
“The 12th District is the most egregious example
in the nation of the interpretation, urged by
blacks and Republicans, that the 1982 revisions
of the VRA require the maximization of black
percentages in congressional districts. It is
called the I-85 district, because it consists of a
series of urban black areas, many of them poor,
mostly connected by a line sometimes no wider
than I-85, splitting adjacent districts in two.”
Almanac of American Politics, 1996, p. 1016
•
“I love the district because I can drive down I-85
with both car doors open and hit every person
in the district.”—candidate Micky Michaux.
•
“In one county, northbound drivers on I-85
would be in the 12th district, but southbound
drivers would be in another.” Wall Street
Journal
Redistricting and Related Issues
• Problem with Majority-Minority Districts?
• Emphasis on “impact” or “influence”
districts.
– The critical mass argument is made here.
• Diverse electoral districts
– In many places, Latinos and AfricanAmericans live in close proximity.
– Districting means a large number of both
groups will reside in the district.
Congressional Districts
• Some Examples
– CA 33rd District
• 30 percent African American
• 35 percent Hispanic Origin
• African American representative Diane Watson
– CA 35th District
• 34.1 percent African American
• 47.4 Hispanic Origin
• African American representative Maxine Waters
– CA 37th District
• 24.8 percent African American
• 43.2 percent Hispanic Origin
• African American representative Laura Richardson
– http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/congdist.pdf
– http://velazquez.house.gov/chc/
Ideology: Characteristics of MCs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ideology Estimates for Incumbents
Controlling for Race, Ethnicity, and Party Affiliation
Incumbent Ideology
Black
Latino
White
All Incumbents
Mean (s.d.) .54 (.19) .29 (.31)
-.04 (.38)
Median (i.q.r.) .56 (.16) .37 (.28)
-.03 (.70)
N Cases
312
156
4187
Democrats
Mean (s.d.) .56 (.11)
.42 (.13)
.30 (.18)
Median (i.q.r.).57 (.15)
.40 (.20)
.31 (.24)
N Cases
303
128
2106
Take-Away Points
•
•
•
•
Importance of Ideology
Democratic Dominant
Issue of Descriptive Representation
“Can an African-American represent
Latinos”
• Ideological characteristics of the
population (more on that tomorrow)
• Election of minority representatives?
Voting Rules
• US Congress
– Single-member district
– Winner-take-all
– Implications
• Reinforces two-party dominant system
– Incentive for third parties to emerge small.
• Not all publicly held offices work this way
Alternative Voting Systems
• Often proposed as a solution for low levels
of minority representation.
• Examples
– Cumulative Voting: Cast as many votes as
there are candidates running.
– It’s up to you how to distribute those votes.
– Why might this help minority candidates?
– Research shows it does work
Alternative Voting Systems
• Single Transferrable Vote Systems
– Preference Voting sometimes associated with certain PR
systems
• Limited Voting
– In limited voting, voters cast fewer votes than there are seats to
be elected, thereby allowing a majority group to control the
majority of seats, but not all seats. The greater the difference
between the number of seats and the number of votes, the
greater the opportunities for fair representation. Versions of
limited voting are used in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia (PA),
Hartford (CT) and many jurisdictions across North Carolina and
Alabama. It has been used successfully to resolve several Voting
Rights Act cases. (http://fairvote.org/?page=565)
• Where these systems are in place, minority
representation tends to be higher.