427Latino Representation

LEGISLATIVE STUDIES QUARTERLY, XXXIV, 3, August 2009 427

WALTER WILSONUniversity of Texas at San Antonio

Latino Representationon Congressional Websites

Do Latino representatives enhance or “enlarge” Latino representation (Walsh2002)? I examined the content of websites posted by members of the 110th Congressand found that the websites of Latino representatives are not more accessible toSpanish-speaking users than the websites of non-Latino representatives, nor are thesites more likely to exhibit pro-immigrant positions or offer immigration assistance.The websites of Latino representatives are, however, more likely to present Latinoperspectives. Latino representatives enhance Latino representation in this forum byenlarging or broadening the presence of a Latino voice in policy discussion.

Studies of Latino1 representation frequently overlook thecommunication styles that representatives use to reach out and relateto Latino constituencies (Bratton 2006; Casellas 2005; Espino 2004;Hero and Tolbert 1995; Huerta and Santos 2006; Johnson and Secret1996; Kerr and Miller 1997; Santos and Huerta 2001). For this article,I considered the public communications of representatives as indicatorsof Latino representation. I contend that the methods of public outreachexamined here are elements of representative “styles” (Adler, Gent,and Overmeyer 1998; Bystrom et al. 2004; Fenno 1978) and thatevidence from this approach can augment our understanding of Latinorepresentation in Congress.

My decision to focus on representatives’ communication stylesarose in part from a series of interviews I conducted on Capitol Hilland in two San Antonio-area congressional districts. The purpose ofthe interviews was to explore similarities and differences in therepresentation of Latino constituents by Latino and non-Latino mem-bers of Congress. From winter 2006 through summer 2007, I conducted50 interviews with Latinos and non-Latinos affiliated with both politicalparties. With few exceptions, the offices selected for interviewsrepresented districts with large Latino populations—that is, Latinosgenerally constituted more than 20% of each district’s population. Halfof the interviewees were representatives or former representatives, andhalf were senior members of congressional or district staffs.

428 Walter Wilson

Although most of the interview subjects placed no specialsignificance on Latino outreach, a number of representatives appearedto make exceptional efforts to communicate with Latino constituencies.A statement by a congressional staffer provides an example: “When atown hall meeting with the congressman is held in the district, 20 of100 constituents attending might not speak English. For these people,we bring headphones and have a staffer actively translating thecongressman’s speech into Spanish” (staff interview, December 15,2006).

The representative referred to in the quote is Latino. Hiscongressional district is overwhelmingly Latino, with a large Spanish-speaking population. This representative obviously goes to great lengthsto include and communicate with Spanish-speaking constituents. Butto what can we attribute his style of outreach in this case? To the Latinocharacter of the constituency? To the constituency’s linguistic needs?To an understanding of the needs of Latino constituents that arisesfrom his own Latino heritage? For this study, I explored communica-tions that have implications for Latino representation, and I tested thehypothesis that Latino members of Congress practice styles ofcommunication that provide enhanced or enlarged representation toLatino constituents.

Communication and Latino Representation

Theorists clearly recognize the importance of communication torepresentation and the interrelatedness of the two actions. In policydebate and in accountability to constituents, the responsiveness thatoccurs through communication is fundamental to the concept ofrepresentation (Mill 1991; Pitkin 1967; Young 1993). For example,representatives provide policy responsiveness when they take publicpositions on issues that reflect the priorities and preferences of theconstituents they represent. Service responsiveness occurs through the“efforts of representatives to secure particularized benefits forindividuals or groups” and efforts to keep constituents aware of andinformed about policy issues and government services (Eulau and Karps1977, 241).

Communication patterns receive token attention in several studiesrelated to representation by female legislators (Bystrom and Kaid 2002;Herrnson, Lay, and Stokes 2003; Tamerius 1995) and by AfricanAmerican representatives (Fenno 2003; Gay 2002; Swain 1993). Yetno research on Latino representation has analyzed differences in thecommunication styles of Latino and non-Latino representatives. I

429Latino Representation

investigated whether or not Latino members of Congress are “onaverage, more likely to represent the concerns and interests” of Latinoconstituents in their styles of communication (Williams 1998, 6).

The attribute that could theoretically increase the likelihood thatLatino representatives “act for” Latinos is a Latino life experiencethat sets these legislators apart from representatives who come fromrelatively privileged groups (Pitkin 1967; Williams 1998). For example,personal or close familial experiences with immigration affect amajority of Latinos (40% of Latinos are foreign born, according to thePew Hispanic Center), but these experiences are rare among whiteAmericans. Language barriers also can create experiences that setLatinos apart; nearly half of Latinos over the age of 18 indicate thatthey do not speak English “very well” (Pew Hispanic Center 2004).2These and many other obstacles hamper Latino political and economicsocialization, creating a politically relevant “Latino experience.”

Distinctive Latino experiences should, theoretically, engenderdistinctive Latino political perspectives (Williams 1998, 6). One Latinarepresentative provided the following example regarding voting: “Ifyou’ve gone to a voting booth to try to vote, and, because of the colorof your skin, you’ve been asked for an identification card, even thoughyou’re not supposed to be, your perspective on voting rights in thiscountry is vastly different than somebody who’s never had that expe-rience” (member interview, April 23, 2007). This legislator’s state-ment makes clear how Latino experiences with immigration affect thepolitical integration of Latinos and how her experience shapes herunderstanding of issues and problems related to political participation.Non-Latino representatives, who have not experienced life as Latinos,may be less adequately prepared to recognize Latino issues or tounderstand the nuances of “uncrystallized” Latino interests(Mansbridge 1999).

Unique experiences and political perspectives could enhanceLatino representatives’ ability to act for Latino constituents in publiccommunications. Such attributes may facilitate these legislators’abilities to voice Latino concerns, discuss or explain uncrystallized Latinointerests (like those associated with voting rights and political partici-pation), and provide confident leadership on issues that affect Latinoconstituents disproportionately. Especially when messages rely heavilyon Latino experiences for their expression, one might expect differ-ences in the styles of communication that Latino and non-Latino mem-bers of Congress use to represent Latino populations. To explore thesepossibilities, I considered a ubiquitous dimension of congressionalcommunication: official websites hosted by members of Congress.3

430 Walter Wilson

The focus of this study is important for two reasons. First, itexpands the scope of empirical research by analyzing the representationof Latinos using new indicators. Representation is present in numeroustypes of responsive behavior, legislative and otherwise, that often precedevotes on specific pieces of legislation (Eulau and Karps 1977; Hall 1996).The website indicators examined here enable my research to reflect thisreality. Second, examining multiple communication patterns that indicatedifferent types of responsiveness and serve different representativefunctions allows me to move beyond the question of whether Latinosare more effectively represented by Latino representatives or non-Latino representatives to characterize the styles of outreach thatdifferentiate Latino representatives from non-Latino representatives.

Why Websites?

Communication between constituents and representatives takesmany forms. Constituents contact members of Congress at campaignevents and through lobbying. They write letters and emails, make phonecalls, and visit their representatives’ district and Washington, DC,offices. Members of Congress hold campaign events, send frankedmail, and issue press statements reporting their most prominent politicalpositions and actions.

Increasingly, communication between representatives andconstituents is conducted electronically. By 2006, more than 70% ofAmericans had been online (Madden 2006). Five years earlier, someHouse offices were already receiving 8,000 email messages a month.Some Senate offices received upwards of 55,000 per month(Goldschmidt 2001, 3). Combined postal and email communicationswith members of Congress grew 300% during the 1995–2004 decade(Fitch and Goldschmidt 2005, 14). These statistics strongly suggestthat electronic communication has become one of the most importantmeans of—if not the primary conduit for—communication betweenconstituents and their representatives. Although the effects of elec-tronic information on political engagement are not entirely clear,4 publicexposure to government information via the Internet is widespreadand growing. As many as two-thirds of Internet users employ theInternet to obtain information from or communicate with the govern-ment (Larson and Rainie 2002).

Congressional websites offer a “forum of communication that iscompletely controlled by the congressional office” (Niven and Zilber2001, 397), which allows representatives to make positive publicimpressions (Gulati 2004). Websites also constitute perhaps the most

431Latino Representation

universally comparable forum of congressional communication. Somescholars compare the research value of communication on congres-sional websites to Fenno’s (1978) observations of “home styles” (Adler,Gent, and Overmeyer 1998). Others refer to the “webstyles” thatcandidates for Congress present on their campaign websites (Bystromet al. 2004). Because congressional websites receive significantnumbers of visitors, contain information similar to that found intraditional congressional newsletters, and conform to rules similar tothose that restrict the franking privilege—for example, a congressionalwebsite may not be updated within two months of an election—wecan assume that these websites constitute a significant public forum inthe eyes of representatives. For these reasons, congressional websitesprovide a useful data source for the purpose of analyzing Latino repre-sentation in the communication styles of U.S. representatives.

Latinos and Internet Disconnection:A Limiting Factor?

A “digital divide” exists between relatively affluent, mostly whiteindividuals, who possess far greater access to information technology,and poorer, mostly minority individuals (Mossberger, Tolbert, andGilbert 2006; Norris 2001). The divide is particularly wide betweenwhite Americans and Latinos. Whereas 71% of whites and 60% ofblacks use the Internet, only 56% of Latinos do. The same pattern isevident for every age group. Relatively low levels of education andincome appear linked to Latinos’ low rates of Internet use, as does thefact that large segments of the Latino population have limited Englishproficiency (Fox and Livingston 2007).

Using indicators from congressional websites to test for differ-ences in the communication styles of Latino and non-Latino represen-tatives stacks the deck in favor of null findings. Low rates of Internetuse by Latinos reduce the incentive for representatives to reach out toLatino audiences via the web. Additionally, Latino representatives indistricts that are polarized by party, ethnicity, or both may have reasonto avoid Internet communication that represents Latino interests: suchcommunication may generate hostility rather than support. Represen-tatives may find direct forms of communication, like the town hallmeeting cited in the introduction, more effective for reaching andrepresenting Latino constituents. Indeed, the representative discussedin my introduction makes significant efforts to communicate in personwith Spanish speakers, but one must sift through dozens of pressreleases on his website before encountering information written in

432 Walter Wilson

Spanish. I acknowledge the digital divide in my analysis by controllingfor constituency-level variables that relate to rates of Internet use. TheInternet’s relatively diminished appeal as a forum for Latino outreachwould make any findings that Latino representatives exhibit uniquecommunication styles on their websites compelling evidence that theselegislators make a difference for Latino representation.

Research Design

I examined the congressional websites of all members of theHouse of Representatives who served during the 110th Congress todiscern whether or not Latino and non-Latino representatives employdifferent styles of Internet communication to represent Latinoconstituents. The 110th House of Representatives included 26 Latinos:16 of Mexican or Central American ancestry, 4 of Cuban ancestry, 3 ofPuerto Rican ancestry, and 3 of Portuguese ancestry. Twenty of thesemembers, all Democrats, were also members of the CongressionalHispanic Caucus (CHC). For primarily personal reasons, two LatinaDemocrats were not members of the CHC during the 110th Congress.5The 4 Latino Republicans were Cuban American (3) and of Portu-guese descent (1).6

Dependent Variables

I modeled five dependent variables to explore the representationof Latinos in congressional website communication. First, I estimatedthe extent to which congressional websites are accessible in Spanish,using an ordinal scale ranging from 0 (no Spanish content) to 3 (fullyaccessible in English and Spanish). Second, I estimated the likelihoodthat representatives take “pro-immigrant” positions on their websites.Third, I estimated the likelihood that representatives take “anti-immigrant”positions on their websites. Fourth, I assessed the likelihood thatrepresentatives offer immigration assistance as a component ofconstituency service casework. Finally, I estimated the likelihood thatcongressional websites present Latino perspectives in policydiscussions. Pro-immigrant position taking, anti-immigrant positiontaking, offers of immigration assistance, and the articulation of Latinoperspectives are measured dichotomously.

The variable measuring Spanish accessibility, a critical pre-requisite for communication with Spanish speakers, captures animportant method by which representatives can reach out to Latinoaudiences and by which Latino representatives can express common

433Latino Representation

identity with these constituents. Certainly, expanded Spanish-languageoptions indicate government transition to the digital arena and a higherquality of representation on websites generally (West 2004), but inthis context, they also provide evidence of service responsiveness tothe linguistic needs of Latino constituencies. Versions of webpages“En Español,” menus in Spanish, and completely English-Spanishbilingual sites demonstrate varying levels of commitment to includingSpanish speakers that are absent on websites lacking such features.Websites with no Spanish-language content were coded as 0. Websiteswere coded as 1 if any Spanish feature appeared but the websiteremained generally inaccessible to Spanish speakers. Websites some-what accessible to Spanish speakers by virtue of a menu offeringmultiple live links in Spanish (but also some inactive links) or a “trans-late” option directing viewers to an external translation service werecoded as 2. A fully accessible Spanish-language website paralleling ormirroring the English version, earned the website a 3.

Position taking on immigration, which is commonly viewed as aLatino issue,7 constitutes an indicator of policy responsiveness to Latinoconstituents. While immigration policy is complicated and multifaceted,and there is no monolithic Latino position on the issue, inclusive orpro-immigrant positions, as opposed to exclusive or anti-immigrantpositions, are more congruent with Latino majority opinion. Policyresponsiveness is therefore provided to Latino constituencies byrepresentatives who take pro-immigrant positions on their websites.Because anti-immigrant position taking is incongruent with the pref-erences of most Latinos, such communication does not provide policyresponsiveness to Latino constituents. I coded for pro-immigrant andanti-immigrant position taking separately, each as a dichotomousvariable. Websites with messages offering an inclusive tone regardingimmigrants were coded as pro-immigrant. Websites with messagesusing an exclusive tone—often recognizable as “enforcement only”approaches to immigration policy or anti-“amnesty”—were coded asanti-immigrant. Websites that did not reveal an immigration positionwere coded as 0 with regard to each of these variables.8

Offers of immigration help in casework on websites respond to aservice need of many Latinos. Immigration services are offered almostexclusively in the constituency service sections of congressionalwebsites, usually as one among a number of services offered by thecongressional office. Although some websites provided more informationregarding immigration services, all websites that at least mentioned immi-gration help as a service provided by the office were coded as 1. Thosethat did not mention any immigration services were coded as 0.

434 Walter Wilson

Website discussions that present Latino perspectives are aparticularly important aspect of communication style for this study ofLatino representation. Because of the sensitivity with which thearticulation of Latino perspectives links Latino interests to policy, thesemessages appear especially likely, among the indicators examined here,to rely on the Latino experience that theoretically distinguishes Latinorepresentatives from non-Latino representatives. These messages servean important role in representing Latinos, because they give voice toLatino concerns and priorities, helping to crystallize Latino interests.Such messages can influence how issues and policies are interpretedand increase the legitimacy of Latino points of view, thereby“enlarging” Latino representation (Walsh 2002).

Legislators present Latino perspectives on congressional websiteswhen they frame arguments around Latino interests and concerns ormake claims about how policies affect Latinos (Walsh 2002). Occa-sionally, the presentation of Latino perspectives occurs when repre-sentatives articulate support for Latino interests up front and subse-quently fill this frame with examples of policy priorities. For example,Representative Joe Baca (D-CA) devoted a page under the “Hot Issues”tab of his homepage to “Latino Issues.” On this page, Baca discussedhis support for specific programs, including the High School Equiva-lence Program and the College Assistance Migrant Program, thatexpand Latino access to education. He also indicated his desire toincrease opportunities for Latinos in corporate America and hiscommitment to “ensure that Hispanics have a voice in our govern-ment” (Baca 2007).

More often, representatives integrate arguments framed aroundLatino interests or emphasizing policy effects on Latinos into broaderpolicy discussions. In a statement on health care priorities, for example,Representative Hilda Solis (D-CA) emphasized the importance of elimi-nating racial and ethnic health disparities that affect groups includingLatinos. Similarly, Solis’s discussion of environmental issues notedthat “Latinos are nearly twice as likely to be living in neighborhoodsplagued by some of the most dangerous pollutants” and emphasizedher efforts to secure environmental justice for these Latino communities(Solis 2007). Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) oriented adiscussion of education around his position as chair of the Congres-sional Hispanic Caucus’s education task force. Hinojosa presentedhimself as a “powerful voice for the aspirations of communities tradi-tionally left behind in America’s education system: low-incomefamilies, minorities, students with disabilities, English-languagelearners, and the children of migrant and seasonal farm workers.” He

435Latino Representation

also emphasized his leadership on an “unprecedented number ofmeasures in the 110th Congress that boost the achievement ofHispanics” (Hinojosa 2007).

A third common method representatives use to introduce Latinoperspectives into websites is to initiate discussions centered on widelyrecognizable cultural priorities. Press releases paying tribute to Latinolabor leader Cesar Chavez (Sanchez 2003) or discussing the signifi-cance of Cinco de Mayo (Gonzalez 2007), for example, extol the virtuesof a person and event with heightened salience to Latino communitiesand demonstrate the importance of Latino cultural priorities to Americansociety. In each case, messages that present Latino perspectives identifyLatinos as a political constituency or elaborate on the relationship ofLatino interests to issues discussed by the representative—sometimesboth. Websites with messages that framed arguments or discussedpolicy implications in ways that presented Latino perspectives werecoded as 1. Those that contained no such messages were coded as 0.

Alpha reliability scores for the dependent variables range from.84 to .96 between the coder of the dataset and the coder of a subsampleof 45 sites, indicating acceptable levels of intercoder agreement.9 Iexamined the extent to which congressional websites were accessibleto Spanish speakers using ordinal logistic regression. Logistic regres-sion enabled me to assess the likelihoods that representatives’ websitestook pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant positions,10 offered help withimmigration problems, or presented Latino perspectives.

With the exception of anti-immigrant position taking, each ofthe indicators of web communication examined here provides respon-siveness—either service or policy responsiveness—to Latino constitu-ents. Latino representatives should be less likely than non-Latinolegislators to take anti-immigrant positions. I expected differencesbetween Latino and non-Latino representatives to be greatest withrespect to the presentation of Latino perspectives, since suchcommunications rely more upon the attribute of Latino experience thattheoretically sets Latino representatives apart from non-Latinorepresentatives.

Spanish accessibility and offers of help with immigration provideservice responsiveness to Latino constituents, but, in and of themselves,these services do not rely significantly upon experience for theirexpression. Nor do such communications, as conceptualized, neces-sarily voice Latino concerns or interests. I expected smaller or less-significant differences between Latino and non-Latino representativeswith regard to language indicators and offers of immigration assistancethan with respect to the presentation of Latino perspectives.

436 Walter Wilson

Similarly, I expected smaller differences between Latino and non-Latino legislators with regard to pro-immigrant position taking thanwith the presentation of Latino perspectives. Immigration positiontaking reports only the valence of a representative’s preference, notthe justification for that legislator’s preference. As such, simple positiontaking, even when positions provide policy responsiveness to Latinoconstituents via congruence with Latino preferences, need not voiceLatino concerns or crystallize Latino interests related to immigration.Furthermore, Latino experiences clearly provide but one of many com-pelling motives for representatives to adopt pro-immigrant positions.

Independent Variables

A number of independent variables operate in the models ascontrols for the primary variable of interest: whether or not the repre-sentative is Latino. Chief among these are variables measuring ethnic,linguistic, and nativity characteristics of congressional districts.11

Previous research on minority representation has suggested that boththe characteristics of representatives and of constituencies are impor-tant to explaining representative behaviors (Gross 2005). I thereforeemployed three different “Latino” constituency measures—the Latinopercentage of the district population, the percentage of the populationwho speak Spanish at home, and the percentage of foreign-bornLatinos—to represent Latino district characteristics. I used thesemeasures according to their theoretical importance to the dependentvariable being analyzed. Spanish-speaking Population appears in themodel of Spanish accessibility. Because this variable is so highlycorrelated with Latino Population (.99), and because it relates moreclosely to the substantive representation indicated by Spanish Acces-sibility, Spanish-speaking Population is the only Latino constituencyvariable used to estimate the model of Spanish accessibility. In modelsestimating pro-immigrant positions, anti-immigrant positions, andoffers of immigration help, I included both Latino Population andForeign-born Population. The model estimating the presentation ofLatino perspectives includes only Latino population, as foreign-bornpopulation is not directly relevant to this model.

Sorting out the competing effects of legislator and constituencycharacteristics has often proven difficult (Grose 2005). The size ofminority constituencies is often too highly correlated with the minoritycharacteristics of members. Fortunately for this project, diagnosticsreveal that the demographic variables do not share correlations thatthreaten the accuracy of the inferential statistics produced by these

437Latino Representation

models. The correlation between Latino Representative and the threeLatino constituency variables ranges from .48 to .77. Variance inflationfactors (VIFs) also demonstrate that multicolinearity is not a problemin these models. The VIF values are well below 10 for all independentvariables (Chatterjee, Hadi, and Price 2000).12

Other control variables, used in all five models, indicate memberideology13 and provide dichotomous markers for Political Party(1 = Democrat, 0 = Republican), First-year Legislator, and Blue Dog.14

A district-level variable controls for Constituency Conservatism usingthe Coalition member proportion of the population that voted for Presi-dent George W. Bush during the 2004 election as a proxy measure. Iaccounted for geographic region with Border State, a variable indicatingwhether or not a representative is from a state that borders Mexico.And I tracked constituency propensity for Internet use15 through district-level variables indicating percentage of the population under the ageof 50, percentage with a high school education or higher, and MedianIncome (in thousands of dollars).

Findings

Table 1 presents the findings of five models that estimate theextent of Spanish-language access on congressional websites, the like-lihood of pro- and anti-immigration position taking, the likelihood thatcongressional websites offer help with immigration casework, and thelikelihood that representatives present Latino perspectives on congres-sional websites. The statistical difference between Latino and non-Latino representatives is significant with regard to the presentation ofLatino perspectives, but statistical differences between these groupsfor the other indicators are not significant. In other words, Latinorepresentatives are more likely than non-Latino representatives to reachout to Latino audiences on congressional websites by includingmessages that express Latino perspectives, but these legislators are nomore likely to take pro-immigrant positions, offer help with immigra-tion casework, or enhance the Spanish accessibility of their websitesonce one controls for other factors.

Forty congressional websites, fewer than 10%, featured Spanish-language content. Of those 40 sites, 15 contained incomplete menus inSpanish or links to external translation services that made them some-what accessible in Spanish. Only 4 websites were fully accessible inSpanish. Fifteen Latino representatives (58%) provided some Spanishaccessibility on their websites, but 11 provided none. As for non-Latinorepresentatives, 25 (6%) offered some form of Spanish-language

438 Walter Wilson

TABLE 1Latino Representation on Congressional Websites, 110th Congress

(robust standard errors in parentheses)

Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Model 4: Model 5:Spanish Pro- Anti- Immigration Latino

Independent Variable Accessibility Immigration Immigration Casework Perspectives

Latino Representative 0.203 –0.445 – 1.099 2.566##(.820) (0.980) – (0.814) (1.283)

Spanish-speaking Population 5.861## – – – –(2.158) – – – –

Latino Population – 4.972## 4.822 –2.062 11.213###– (2.733) (3.214) (1.912) (3.372)

Foreign-born Population – 8.549### –5.542 2.523 –– (2.656) (4.490) (2.032) –

Political Party 0.523 2.850** 0.273 –0.621 –0.313(0.982) (1.027) (0.645) (0.479) (1.575)

Legislator Conservatism –2.827 –1.038 8.893** –2.994 –11.669*(4.234) (3.917) (2.889) (2.159) (6.173)

First-year Legislator –1.255 –0.386 –0.084 –0.518 0.098(1.086) (0.600) (0.464) (0.331) (1.107)

Blue Dog 0.508 –2.570* 0.216 0.700* –1.361(0.718) (1.151) (0.582) (0.422) (1.405)

Constituency Conservatism –1.017 0.460 4.187 0.510 –0.275(2.399) (2.473) (2.354) (1.444) (3.409)

Border State 0.140 0.366 –0.203 0.600 –0.516(0.505) (0.506) (0.517) (0.379) (0.796)

Population under Age 50 –0.591 14.203** 0.008 4.812 –1.551(5.814) (5.601) (3.492) (2.722) (8.256)

High School Education + –1.318 20.543*** 0.515 2.330 7.477(4.736) (5.187) (3.255) (2.453) (7.028)

Median Income 0.044 –0.143* 0.045 0.000 0.048(0.058) (0.063) (0.050) (0.035) (0.074)

Constant – –29.570*** –7.382* –4.390 –8.855– (6.573) (3.371) (2.741) (9.365)

τ1 2.381(6.178)

τ2 3.432(6.178)

τ3 5.267(6.191)

N 430 430 404 430 430Log Likelihood –129.114 –97.334 –171.263 –275.678 –51.100Likelihood Ratio χ2 82.830 118.490 105.130 23.130 145.280χ2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.000Pseudo R2 0.243 0.3784 0.235 0.040 0.587

*p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001 (two-tailed tests).#p ≤ .05; ##p ≤ .01; ###p ≤ .001 (one-tailed tests). Coefficients unstandardized.

439Latino Representation

website content; 380 offered none. Representatives’ ethnicities did notpredict Spanish website accessibility in a statistical sense, but thenumber of Spanish speakers in congressional districts did so strongly.For example, the predicted probability of a website containing noSpanish features decreases from .93 to .40 as Spanish-speaking popu-lation increases from 20% to 70%, or by an average of more than .10for each 10% increase in a district’s Spanish-speaking population.Meanwhile, the predicted probabilities of websites being moderatelyor fully accessible to Spanish speakers increases from .01 and 0 whenSpanish speakers constitute 20% of the district population to .27 and.08 when Spanish speakers constitute 70% of the district population.

Although a larger percentage of Latino representatives (10 of 26,or 38%) than non-Latino representatives (41 of 405, or 10%) took pro-immigrant positions on websites, it was the sizes of Latino and foreign-born populations in congressional districts that strongly predicted suchposition taking. In districts where Latinos constitute between 20% and70% of the district population, the predicted probability that the repre-sentative takes a pro-immigrant position ranges from .04 to .35,indicating an average increase in probability of over .06 for each addi-tional 10% of the population that is Latino. The relationship betweenforeign-born population and pro-immigrant position taking is evenstronger. The predicted probability that a representative’s websitepresents a pro-immigrant position increases from .06 to .46 as foreign-born population ranges from 20% to 50%, an average increase of morethan .013 for each 1% increase in a district’s foreign-born population.Pro-immigrant position taking also appears related to political party.The probability that the website of a Democratic representative conveysa pro-immigrant position is 10 times the probability that a Republican’swebsite does so, with all other variables at their means. Finally, BlueDog Coalition members are less likely to take pro-immigrant positions,whereas representatives from districts where constituents are, onaverage, older, more educated, and poorer are more likely to do so.

Legislator Conservatism stands alone in predicting anti-immigrant position taking. The magnitude of the coefficient for thisvariable clearly demonstrates that more-conservative representativesare more likely to take anti-immigrant positions.16 Notably, no Latinolegislator took an anti-immigrant position on a congressional website.Because no Latino representative took an anti-immigrant position, Idropped this variable from Model 3, along with the 26 observations ofLatino representatives.

Offers of help with immigration casework were far more ubiquitouson congressional websites than were instances of Spanish content,

440 Walter Wilson

immigration positions, or the presentation of Latino perspectives. Thisprevalence suggests that such communications are routine relative tothe other indicators examined here. In all, 263 congressional websites(61%) offered help with immigration as a component of casework.Specifically, 20 Latino legislators (77%) and 243 non-Latino legislators(60%) offered such services. But neither representative ethnicity norLatino or foreign-born population percentages predict offers of immi-gration help. While immigration casework is almost certainly a highpriority for some representatives, the level of intensity with whichrepresentatives prioritize this service may be difficult to discern usingthe website indicator employed here. More-nuanced methods ofassessing legislator commitment to helping immigrants are necessaryto determine if differences between Latino and non-Latino represen-tatives exist with respect to this form of service responsiveness.

The largest and most significant difference between Latino andnon-Latino representatives involves their propensity to present Latinoperspectives on their websites: 21 Latino representatives (81%), com-pared with only 15 non-Latino representatives (4%), presented Latinoperspectives. With other variables at their means, the probability thata Latino representative’s website presents a Latino perspective is 12times the probability that a non-Latino representative’s website presentsa Latino perspective. Results also show that Latino population is posi-tively and significantly associated with the presentation of Latino per-spectives. The predicted probability of a website presenting a Latinoperspective increases by an average of .017, from .03 to .89, for eachadditional 1% of the population that is Latino between 20% and 70%.This second finding suggests that representatives, both Latino and non-Latino, are more likely to respond to larger Latino constituencies byframing discussions around Latino interests or concerns, or bydiscussing the effects of issues or policies on the Latino population.

Figure 1 illustrates the presentation of Latino perspectives onwebsites by Latino and non-Latino representatives with respect todifferent Latino population sizes. The graphic demonstrates that, whileboth Latino and non-Latino representatives are more likely to presentLatino perspectives when they represent larger Latino populations,the dramatic increase in responsiveness to this constituency on thepart of Latino representatives occurs in districts with much smallerLatino populations. Since Latino representatives were concentrated indistricts that were more than 40% Latino (only two Latino representa-tives served districts with smaller Latino populations during the 110thCongress), the probability that an average Latino representative’swebsite would present a Latino perspective was above .75.

441Latino Representation

The greater effort on the part of Latino representatives to reach outto Latino audiences on their congressional websites through the presenta-tion of Latino perspectives in policy discussions highlights an importantdifference in the communication styles that Latino and non-Latino repre-sentatives employ to represent Latino constituents. Latino representativesappear more likely to reach out to Latino audiences in ways that identifyand incorporate Latinos as a political constituency, voice Latino concerns,and crystallize Latino interests. This finding is consistent with myexpectation that differences in the communication styles of Latino andnon-Latino representatives would be especially significant with regard tocommunications that share obvious correlates with the attribute of Latinoexperience possessed by Latino representatives.

Discussion

Do Latino representatives enhance Latino representation? Thefindings of this analysis suggest some important similarities in thewebsite representation of Latinos by Latino and non-Latino membersof Congress, but also a difference in Internet communication stylesthat has implications for the representation of Latino constituents. Ontheir websites, Latino representatives are more likely to voice Latino

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

La tino Re pre se nta tive

Non- La tinoR i

FIGURE 1Latino Perspectives on Congressional Websites

% Latino Population

Prob

abili

ty

Latino Representative

Non-Latino Representative

442 Walter Wilson

concerns and to discuss issues and policies in ways that crystallize Latinointerests. These legislators’ heightened propensity to present messagesfrom a Latino perspective enhances, or enlarges, the representation ofLatino constituents on congressional websites (Walsh 2002).

Statistically significant differences between Latino and non-Latino representatives did not appear in relation to the other websitecommunications examined here. At first glance, these findings seemsurprising. For example, Latino representatives did not offer greaterSpanish accessibility on their websites than non-Latino representativesoffered, and not all Latino representatives reached out linguistically toSpanish speakers on their websites—trends that run contrary toexpectations. Such obvious methods to reach out to Latinoconstituencies and to identify with them would appear to make sense.

One staffer I interviewed who worked for a Latino representativewas skeptical when I indicated my plan to assess patterns of Spanishaccessibility on websites. “Do you know why so many Latino repre-sentatives don’t do that?” the staffer asked rhetorically. “Becausenobody goes to [the sites].” Hearing this attitude came as a shock tome in the wake of statements from the staffer quoted in the introduction,whose boss made significant efforts at bilingual outreach during townhall meetings. I had observed similar patterns of linguistic “reachingout” when Latino representatives spoke with Spanish-language media.Why would the efforts of Latino representatives to reach out linguisticallyto Latinos—efforts that appear exceptional in face-to-face meetings withconstituents and with Spanish-language media—fail to be reflectedon congressional websites?

Perhaps Latino representatives possess a nuanced understandingof the forums in which Spanish communication is effective. Rates ofInternet use, which are low among Latinos generally, are even loweramong Latinos who predominantly speak Spanish. Only 32% of thisgroup uses the Internet (Fox and Livingston 2007). Latino representa-tives may recognize a phenomenon similar to that described by thestaffer who asserted that Spanish-language webpages receive littletraffic. It is at least possible that Latino representatives, who appear torecognize the importance of communicating with constituents inSpanish in other forums, also recognize that such effort is less fruitfulon the Internet.

Another possibility is that representatives see Spanish commu-nication on the Internet as likely to inspire negative reactions fromconservative and anti-immigrant constituencies. Given low rates ofInternet use by Latinos and lacking any way to target Spanish-speakingconstituencies with Spanish-language material in the context of a

443Latino Representation

website, representatives may fear backlash from non-Latino audiencesafter posting Spanish content. In my interviews with congressionalstaffers who worked for Latino members of Congress, a number ofstaffers claimed that Spanish communication in forums that do nottarget Spanish speakers, such as the floor of Congress or congressionalwebsites, invites significant backlash from constituents opposed togovernment communications in languages other than English. SomeLatino representatives may have more to lose by posting Spanishcontent than to gain.

The fact that Latino representatives are not more likely than non-Latino representatives to take pro-immigrant positions on their websitesmay result from dynamics similar to those I speculate shape Spanishaccessibility on websites. Given low rates of Internet use among Latinopopulations and the anti-immigrant backlash that pro-immigrantposition taking invites, Latino representatives may have reason todeemphasize their positions on controversial issues like immigrationin forums that do not specifically target Latino audiences.

The findings of this analysis point to two important conclusions.First, both Latino and non-Latino representatives are responsive toLatino constituencies. For many communications that represent Latinoson congressional websites, there appears to be an “electoral connec-tion” between Latino constituents and their representatives (Mayhew1974). When Latinos make up larger shares of the population, repre-sentatives make websites more accessible to Spanish speakers. Legis-lators are also more likely to take pro-immigrant positions and to presentLatino perspectives in the messages they post on their websites.

Second, Latino representatives make a difference for Latinorepresentation on the web—one that may illustrate the difference theselegislators make for Latino representation in a broader sense. Whileperhaps no more likely to take pro-immigrant positions, offer immi-gration help, or make their websites accessible to Spanish speakers,Latino representatives are more likely than non-Latino representativesto reach out with messages designed to speak directly to the concernsand interests of Latino audiences. These messages heighten the profileof Latino issues and increase the ability of Latinos to recognize them-selves as a constituency with distinct political interests. And theyenhance a broader public understanding of Latino issues and interests.

Much as theoretical literature on the substantive importance ofdescriptive representation would suggest, Latino representatives appearto take the lead in conveying online messages that define and crystallizeLatino interests (Mansbridge 1999). These efforts serve an importantrepresentative function, facilitating the incorporation of Latino

444 Walter Wilson

concerns and interests into public dialogue and deliberation. On thenew frontier of web-based representation, Latino representatives exhibit acommunication style that enhances and enlarges Latino representation. Inshort, Latino legislators represent Latinos with an active voice.

Walter Wilson <walter.wilson@utsa.edu> is Assistant Professorof Political Science, University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSACircle, San Antonio, TX 78249-0648.

NOTES

1. I use the word Latino throughout this article to refer to both male and female(Latina) individuals. I also intend the term to be used interchangeably with the wordHispanic.

2. For these and other statistics on Latino income, education, linguistic patterns,and nativity, readers may visit the Pew Hispanic Center online: http://pewhispanic.org/reports/middecade/.

3. I studied the websites of 430 U.S. representatives posting content during theweek of October 28–November 3, 2007.

4. See Bimber 2001 and Tolbert and McNeal 2003 for discussions of the partici-patory effects of Internet use.

5. Sisters Linda and Loretta Sanchez left the CHC in the spring of 2007. Theircharge that female members of the caucus were not treated equitably followed allega-tions that the newly elected CHC chair, Representative Joe Baca, made a derogatorystatement in reference to Loretta Sanchez (Hearn and Grim 2007).

6. These four Republicans, along with Resident Commissioner Luis Fortuño ofPuerto Rico, are members of the Congressional Hispanic Conference. Some studies ofLatino representation exclude representatives of Portuguese descent or RepublicanLatinos from analysis. My use of a more-inclusive count here is consistent with thedecision of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to include representatives of Portu-guese descent, and it provides a more-conservative test of the relationship betweendescriptive and substantive representation.

7. During interviews on Capitol Hill, when asked what constitutes a “Latinoissue,” representatives and staff alike mentioned immigration almost universally andwith greater frequency than any other issue.

8. Mixed messages occasionally characterized legislators’ immigration positions.In such cases, I coded positions as anti-immigrant because they did not provide effectivepolicy responsiveness to Latino preferences.

9. Alpha reliability coefficients are as follows: Spanish Accessibility, .96; Immi-gration Position, .90; Immigration Casework, .84; Latino Perspective, .95.

Immigration position was originally coded on a single ordinal scale: –1 (anti-immigrant), 0 (no position), and 1 (pro-immigrant). The slightly lower alpha coefficientfor this variable is likely due to erroneous data entry on the part of the subsample coder(for example, entering 1 rather than –1 for an anti-immigrant position).

445Latino Representation

The lower alpha coefficient for the seemingly straightforward immigration case-work is somewhat surprising, but it appears to result from a failure on the part of thesubsample coder to recognize a pair of fleeting references to immigration presented inlarger lists of service offerings.

10. I explored alternative statistical options for analyzing immigration positiontaking, namely a selection model separating the decision to post a statement on immi-gration from the decision to post a pro- or anti-immigrant position, and an ordinal logitmodel that would have modeled the immigration variable as –1 (anti), 0 (none), or 1(pro). The separate analyses presented here demonstrate that pro- and anti-immigrantpositions are explained by different variables, and it makes little sense to considerthem together. In short, legislators’ decisions to post pro- and anti-immigrant positionsresult from almost entirely different causes and are different behaviors.

11. Readers will note that the models presented in the main body of the text donot include variables that interact Latino representative with various constituency char-acteristics. Such interaction terms can reveal differences between Latino and non-Latinorepresentatives relative to district characteristics. I estimated a model of Latinoperspectives that included an interaction term multiplying Latino representative byLatino population. The interaction term was positive but not significant, suggestingthat Latino representatives do present more Latino perspectives on their websites thannon-Latino representatives offer, relative to Latino population.

That said, a number of factors forestall the conclusion that Latino representativesare not more responsive to Latino populations relative to their size than non-Latinorepresentatives. First, diagnostic analysis indicated variance inflation factor (VIF) valuesof 26 for the interaction term and 23 for Latino representative. VIF values above 10indicate multicolinearity problems and possible model instability. The high level ofcorrelation between Latino representative and the interaction term (.98) raises similarconcerns. Second, interpretation of the interaction term is problematic, because Latinoand non-Latino legislators tend to represent very different types of Latino populations.Non-Latino legislators represent only 3 of the 24 Latino-majority districts in the sample.Latino legislators represent 25 of the 33 districts with the largest Latino populations,and only two Latinos represent congressional districts with Latino populations consti-tuting less than 42% of the total district population. Comparing the behavior of Latinoand non-Latino representatives across Latino populations is therefore difficult, becausevery few examples of non-Latino members representing Latino-majority districts andLatino representatives representing Latino-minority districts exist in reality. The questionof whether or not Latino representatives are more responsive to Latino populationsremains a critical question for future research on Latino representation.

12. The VIF value for Latino representative ranges from 2.95 to 3.04 to 3.10,depending on whether it is regressed with Spanish-speaking population, Latinopopulation, or both Latino population and foreign-born population. VIF values for theremaining variables are as follows: Latino population, 5.72 to 8.99 (depending onwhether it is regressed without foreign-born population or with it); Spanish-speakingpopulation, 6.75; and foreign-born population, 5.17.

13. Complete data for the 110th Congress were unavailable at the time thisarticle was written, so I used voter rank, gauged by using the first 497 votes of the110th Congress. Originally ranging from 1 (most liberal) to 435 (most conservative),the variable was rescaled for all models, being multiplied by .001. These rankings

446 Walter Wilson

were compiled by Jeff Lewis and Howard Rosenthal using the Optimal Classificationalgorithm (2007).

14. Conservative and new Democrats frequently voted with Republicans onimmigration matters during the 110th Congress and were perceived by many membersof the CHC whom I interviewed as being relatively unfriendly to caucus objectives.

15. These demographic variables are based on findings of the Pew HispanicCenter that link lower levels of income and education to lower rates of Internet use byLatinos, as well as findings that suggest Internet use among Latino populations (andother groups) drops off precipitously for individuals over the age of 50.

16. Because this variable represents a spatial measure, I present no comparisonsof predicted probabilities.

REFERENCES

Adler, Scott, Chariti E. Gent, and Cary B. Overmeyer. 1998. “The Homestyle Homepage:Legislator Use of the World Wide Web for Constituency Contact.” LegislativeStudies Quarterly 23: 585–95.

Baca, Joe. 2007. “Latino Issues.” http://www.house.gov/baca/hotissues/latino.htm(October 28, 2007).

Bimber, Bruce. 2001. “Information and Political Engagement in America: The Searchfor Effects of Information Technology at the Individual Level.” Political ResearchQuarterly 54: 53–67.

Bratton, Kathleen A. 2006. “The Behavior and Success of Latino State Legislators:Evidence from the States.” Social Science Quarterly 87: 1136–57.

Bystrom, Dianne, and Lynda Lee Kaid. 2002. “Are Women Candidates TransformingCampaign Communication? A Comparison of Advertising Videostyles in theLate 1990s.” In Women Transforming Congress, ed. Cindy Simon Rosenthal.Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Bystrom, Dianne G., Mary Christine Banwart, Lynda Lee Kaid, and Terry A. Robertson.2004. Gender and Candidate Communication. New York: Routledge.

Casellas, Jason Paul. 2005. “Latino Representation in Congress and State Legisla-tures.” Ph.D. diss. Princeton University.

Chatterjee, Samprit, Ali S. Hadi, and Bertram Price. 2000. Regression Analysis byExample. 3d ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Dovi, Susanne. 2002. “Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Will Just Any Woman,Black or Latino Do?” American Political Science Review 96: 729–43.

Espino, Rodolfo, III. 2004. “Minority Interests, Majority Rules: Representation ofLatinos in the U.S. Congress.” Ph.D. diss. University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Eulau, Heinz, and Paul D. Karps. 1977. “The Puzzle of Representation: SpecifyingComponents of Responsiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 2: 233–54.

Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little,Brown.

Fenno, Richard. 2003. Going Home. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Fitch, Brad, and Kathy Goldschmidt. 2005. Communicating with Congress: How

Capitol Hill Is Coping with the Surge in Citizen Advocacy. Washington, DC:Congressional Management Foundation.

447Latino Representation

Fox, Susannah, and Gretchen Livingston. 2007. Latinos Online. Washington, DC: PewHispanic Center and Pew Internet Project.

Gay, Claudine. 2002. “Spirals of Trust? The Effect of Descriptive Representation onthe Relationship between Citizens and Their Government.” American Journalof Political Science 46: 717–32.

Goldschmidt, Kathy. 2001. “E-mail Overload in Congress: Managing a Communica-tions Crisis.” Washington, DC: Congress Online Project, CongressionalManagement Foundation, George Washington University.

Gonzalez, Charles. 2007. “May 5, 2007: Rep. Gonzalez Issues Statement Commemo-rating Cinco de Mayo.” May 5, 2007. http://www.gonzalez.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71 (October 29, 2007).

Grose, Christian R. 2005. “Disentangling Constituency and Legislator Effects inLegislative Representation: Black Legislators or Black Districts?” Social ScienceQuarterly 86: 427–43.

Gulati, Girish. 2004. “Members of Congress and Presentation of Self on the WorldWide Web.” Press/Politics 9: 22–40.

Hall, Richard. 1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Hearn, Josephine, and Ryan Grim. 2007. “Linda Sanchez Leaves Hispanic Caucus.”

Politico. April 26, 2007. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3514.html(October 20, 2008).

Hero, Rodney E., and Caroline J. Tolbert. 1995. “Latinos and Substantive Representa-tion in the U.S. House of Representatives: Direct, Indirect, or Nonexistent?”American Journal of Political Science 39: 640–52.

Herrnson, Paul, J. Celeste Lay, and Atiya Kai Stokes. 2003. “Women Running ‘asWomen’: Candidate Gender, Campaign Issues, and Voter-targeting Strategies.”Journal of Politics 65: 244–55.

Hinojosa, Ruben. 2007. “Education.” http://hinojosa.house.gov/about/biography.shtml(October 29, 2007).

Huerta, Juan Carlos, and Adolfo Santos. 2006. “Latino Representation in the U.S.Congress: How Much and by Whom?” American Review of Politics 27: 115–28.

Johnson, James B., and Philip E. Secret. 1996. “Focus and Style, RepresentationalRoles of Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucus Members.” Journal of BlackStudies 26: 245–73.

Kerr, Brinck, and Will Miller. 1997. “Latino Representation, It’s Direct and Indirect.”American Journal of Political Science 41: 1066–77.

Larson, Elena, and Lee Rainie. 2002. The Rise of the E-citizen: How People Use Govern-ment Agencies’ Web Sites. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Lewis, Jeff, and Howard Rosenthal. 2007. “110th House Rank Ordering.” http://www.voteview.com/hou110.htm (December 18, 2007).

Madden, Mary. 2006. “Data Memo.” Pew Internet & American Life Project. April 26,2006. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2006/PIP_Internet_Impact.pdf.pdf (October 1, 2007).

Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women RepresentWomen? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61: 628–57.

Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

448 Walter Wilson

Mill, John Stuart. 1991 (1862). Considerations on Representative Government. Amherst,MA: Prometheus Books.

Mossberger, Karen, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Michele Gilbert. 2006. “Race, Place, andInformation Technology.” Urban Affairs Review 41: 583–620.

Niven, David, and Jeremy Zilber. 2001. “Do Women and Men in Congress CultivateDifferent Images? Evidence from Congressional Web Sites.” Political Commu-nication 18: 395–405.

Norris, Pipa. 2001. Digital Divide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pew Hispanic Center. 2006. “A Statistical Portrait of Hispanics at Mid-Decade.” Sep-

tember 18, 2006. http://pewhispanic.org/reports/middecade/ (February 29, 2008).Pew Hispanic Center/Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2004. “The Hispanic Elec-

torate in 2004.” http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/8.pdf (October 10, 2007).Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of

California Press.Santos, Adolfo, and Juan Carlos Huerta. 2001. “An Analysis of Descriptive and Sub-

stantive Latino Representation in Congress.” In Representation of MinorityGroups in the U.S., ed. Charles E. Menifield. Lanham, MD: Austin and Winfield.

Sanchez, Linda. 2003. “Statement Honoring Cesar E. Chavez.” March 31, 2003.http://www.lindasanchez.house.gov/news.cfm/article/175 (November 2, 2007).

Solis, Hilda. 2007. http://solis.house.gov/issues/healthcare.shtml (November 2, 2007).Solis, Hilda. 2007. “Environmental Justice.” http://solis.house.gov/issues/

environmental_justice (November 2, 2007).Swain, Carol. 1993. Black Faces, Black Interests. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.Tamerius, Karen. 1995. “Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Representation of Women.”

In Gender Power, Leadership and Governance, ed. Georgia Duerst-Lahti andRita Mae Kelly. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Tate, Katherine. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and TheirRepresentatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Texas Legislative Council. 2005. “Population and General Election History, Congres-sional District—Plan 1374C, 3/10/2005.” Austin: Texas Legislative Council.

Tolbert, Caroline J., and Ramona S. McNeal. 2003. “Unraveling the Effects of theInternet on Political Participation.” Political Research Quarterly 56: 175–85.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 2005. “American CommunitySurvey.” http://fastfacts.census.gov (December 1, 2007).

Walsh, Katherine Cramer. 2002. “Enlarging Representation: Women BringingMarginalized Perspectives to Floor Debate in the House of Representatives.” InWomen Transforming Congress, ed. Cindy Simon Rosenthal. Norman: Universityof Oklahoma.

West, Darrell. 2004. “E-Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery andCitizen Attitudes.” Public Administration Review 64: 15–27.

Williams, Melissa. 1998. Voice, Trust, and Memory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Young, Iris Marion. 1993. “Justice and Communicative Democracy.” In Radical

Philosophy: Tradition, Counter-tradition, Politics, ed. Roger S. Gottlieb.Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.