Transcript POL 168: Chican@/Latin@ Politics

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
Trust-in-Government
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10
0
Always
Most
Some
Never
DK
Ref
Trust-in-Government by Sub-Group
Trust-in-Government by Country Heritage
70
60
50
Mexican
40
Cuban
Puerto Rican
Central American
30
South American
20
10
0
Always
Most
Some
Never
DK
Ref
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 Issues
2004 Pew NSLPCP
60
50
Percentage
40
All
Mexican
Cuban
30
Puerto Rican
Central American
South American
20
10
0
Yes
No
DK
Ref
Some Simple Relationships
• What is the relationship
between attention and
efficacy?
• There exists an “attention gap”
in Latin@ ratings of attentionto-issues.
• Men slightly more likely to say
“yes” compared to “women.”
• Overall points?
Attention-to-Issues by Levels-of-Attention
Pew 2004 NSLPCP
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
None
Not Much
Fair Amount
A Lot
No
67.14
62.23
54.23
51.81
Yes
32.86
37.77
45.77
48.19
No
Yes
More Indicators of Efficacy
Political Leaders Do Not Care
35
30
Percentage
25
All
Mexican
20
Cuban
Puerto Rican
15
Central American
South American
10
5
0
Agree ST
Agree SW
Disagree
SW
Disagree ST
DK
Ref
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/p20556.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 Issues
2004 Pew NSLPCP
60
50
All
Percentage
40
Mexican
Cuban
30
Puerto Rican
Central American
20
Series6
10
0
Democratic
Republican
No Diff.
DK
Ref
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 PLI CATI 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=CL3FpHZ85ECFSD7iAodG0KLqQ
• 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&featu
re=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.