POL 168: Chican@/Latin@ Politics

Professor Brad Jones

Dept. of Political Science

UC-Davis

Today

• Fun with Data

• VRA

• Begin with the “Sandoval Proposition”

Trust-in-Government

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Perc

en

tag

e

Always Most Some Never DK Ref

Trust-in-Government

Trust-in-Government by Sub-GroupTrust-in-Government by Country Heritage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Always Most Some Never DK Ref

Mexican

Cuban

Puerto Rican

Central American

South American

Trust…take-away points

• Major features?

• What are the important sub-group differences?

• Overall, how would you characterize levels of trust-in-government?

• Does this surprise you?

• What about belief politicians are interested in Latino issues?

Political Leaders Interested in Latino Issues?

Political Leaders Interested in Latino Issues2004 Pew NSLPCP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yes No DK Ref

Perc

en

tag

e

All

Mexican

Cuban

Puerto Rican

Central American

South American

Some Simple Relationships

• What is the relationship between attention and

efficacy? • There exists an “attention gap”

in Latin@ ratings of attention-to-issues.

• Men slightly more likely to say “yes” compared to “women.”

• Overall points?

Attention-to-Issues by Levels-of-AttentionPew 2004 NSLPCP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

No Yes

No 67.14 62.23 54.23 51.81

Yes 32.86 37.77 45.77 48.19

None Not Much Fair Amount A Lot

More Indicators of EfficacyPolitical Leaders Do Not Care

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Agree ST Agree SW DisagreeSW

Disagree ST DK Ref

Per

cen

tag

e

All

Mexican

Cuban

Puerto Rican

Central American

South American

Implications

• What does this suggest about political efficacy?• Does it matter if one is US born or foreign born?

– Differences are not as pronounced by most respondents agree with the statement.

• What about perceived influence of citizens?• “In the US, citizens can have an influence at all levels of

government…by voting and engaging in other political activities.” (Agree/Disagree)

• 78 percent of respondents agree with this. • Does it “match up” with other result? • Makes no difference if respondent is foreign born or US

born.

Forms of Participation

• Contribute Money?9.4 percent have (over 90 percent have not!)14.2 percent of US born have (still low number)

● Volunteer for Candidate?5.5 percent have; 8.7 percent of US born have.

● Civic Participation (attend a meeting/demonstration?)19.3 percent have; 26.9 percent of US born have.

● What about voting?

Turnout Rates Based on Census Data

• 2004: Estimated 47 percent of eligible Latinos voted (number will be on the “high-side”)– Estimated 67 percent of white non-Latino– Estimated 60 percent of African-American– Estimated 44 percent of Asian– Again, numbers high because they are based on

Census data.– Take away point?– Source:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf

Turnout• 2000 Presidential

– Latino Estimate: 45.1 percent– White, non-Latino: 61.8– African-American: 56.8– Asian/PI: 43.3

• 2002 Midterms– Latino Estimate: 30.4 percent– White, non-Latino: 49.1 percent– African-American: 42.3 percent– Asian/PI: 31.2 percent

• 1998/1994 Midterms– Latino Estimate: 32.8 percent/34.0 percent

• Source for data: US Census Bureau• Take-away points?

What about political parties?

• Which party has the most concern for Latinos?

• What might you expect?

• Let’s consider some data.

Party best for Latino Issues

Party Having Most Concern for Latino Issues2004 Pew NSLPCP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Democratic Republican No Diff. DK Ref

Per

cen

tag

e

All

Mexican

Cuban

Puerto Rican

Central American

Series6

Best Party?

• In 2004, is there one?• What about now? • In 2006, survey results suggested a similar

story. • Haven’t seen more recent data…• However…• Recall the immigration results from the last slide

set. • Let’s consider some indicators of participation.

What do we know about Latinos?

• Attitudes toward government?

• Politicians?

• Political Parties?

• The Acculturation Issue?

• Participation?

• I M P L I C A T I O N S

• Mobilization? Courting the Latino Vote?

Some Links

• Fox Reports• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-

OU9PRb_jqA&feature=related• NALEO• http://www.naleo.org/• LULAC• http://www.lulac.org/• Voto Latino• http://www.votolatino.org/?gclid=CL3F-

pHZ85ECFSD7iAodG0KLqQ• Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project• http://www.svrep.org/

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.

VRA

• Requires reauthorization, most recently 2006

• Mobile vs. Bolden (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 slide set)

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 segrated 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

NC 12th

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 African-Americans live in

close proximity.– Districting means a large number of both groups will

reside in the district.– http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=LBhl_lKLdJ8&feature=related (O’Reilly)

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

– http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/congdist.pdf

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 (see Garcia for

citations)

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.