1. POL 168: Chican@/Latin@ Politics Professor Brad Jones Dept. of Political Science UC-Davis

2. Today Latino Public Opinion Participation

3. 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!

4. 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?

5. 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the South 14 th and 15 th Amendments, in practice, were hard to enforce Enforcement Act of 1870 Force Act of 1871 Both repealed; essentially no enforcement until 1950s.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

6. VRA of 1965 The impetus begins in Kennedy Admin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=- srOvwG81Iw&feature=related 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)

7. 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.

8. 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

9. Descriptive Representation “Latinos are more likely to vote if there are Latinos on the ballot.” (Agree/Disagree)

10. 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)

11. 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

12. VRA Requires reauthorization, most recently 2006 Mobile vs. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 (1980)446 U.S. 55 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.

13. 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)

14. 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.

15. 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 23 rd district.548 U. S. 399 Court Recognizes growing power of Latino vote, whose vote was diluted.

16. NC 12th “The 12 th 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 12 th district, but southbound drivers would be in another.” Wall Street Journal

17. 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.

18. Congressional Districts Some Examples CA 33 rd District 30 percent African American 35 percent Hispanic Origin African American representative Diane Watson CA 35 th District 34.1 percent African American 47.4 Hispanic Origin African American representative Maxine Waters CA 37 th 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/

19. 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

20. 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? The Black-Brown divide?

21. Intergroup Relations To what extent do Latinos sense commonality with other groups? Whites, blacks, Asians specifically? Why should we care? Offers evidence, among other things, for or against claims of black-brown divide.

22. Commonality and Competition Minority politics often centers on competition Scare Resources Jobs Services Recall C. Gay article Let’s consider commonality with the LNS data “How much do Latinos have in common with other racial groups in the US?

23. Commonality: SES Issues

24. Extent of Commonality among Latinos regarding their political situation with African Americans and Whites Latinos in National Latino Survey Commonality with African Americans Commonality with Whites Latino Sub-Groups Colombians (139) 49.641.7 Cubans (419) 51.349.9 Dominicans (335) 52.843.3 El Salvadorans (406) 45.340.9 Guatemalans (149) 40.939.6 Mexicans (5690) 46.942.6 Puerto Ricans (759) 60.647.7 1The numbers in the parentheses represent the number of respondents in that category 2The operational definition for the foreign-born includes all persons born outside the U.S., including being born in Puerto Rico.

25. Commonality: Political Situation

26. Commonality What do we learn? Be sure to know the take-away points from those slides…the relevance of them. Now let’s turn to competition. A motivating argument for the black-brown divide has centered on competition. But competition for what? The black-brown divide (?)

27. Intergroup Relations Black-Brown Divide Does it Exist? What is it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BBT9mtmDBA (go to 1:59; nice summary of some arguments underlying the “divide”) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BBT9mtmDBA Evidence for it? Source of concern?

28. Black-Brown Divide Fear of Displacement Loss of being dominant Outgroup Economic Factors? This is the premise of C. Gay’s article (which you MUST read) What is her argument? “Black economic insecurities” (p. 983) Economic Resources and Material Well Being Strongly related to Latino judgement

29. Black-Brown Divide The “divide” has implications Discriminatory Behavior Policy Consequences Efforts to “bridge the gap” have been important Intragroup Mobilization Kaufmann paper (2003) Main findings?

30. Competition Consider some LNS data Do you “believe there is strong competition, weak competition, or no competition at all with African- Americans?”

31. Competition

32. Commonality and Competition Take away points? Patterns? Differences attributable to US born vs. not? What about black-brown divide? “Linked fate” and Latino/Blacks LNS data

33. Concept of “Linked Fate” with Others: African Americans and Latinos Question: How much does [Latinos] doing well depend on African Americans doing well? Results: Percent saying “some” or “a lot” in 4 emerging states ranges from 58% (NC) to 65% (AR). Plot of Data by birthplace (next slide)

34. Is “doing better” linked to blacks doing better?

35. How much does Latinos doing well depend on African Americans doing well? Latinos in National Latino SurveyLinked Fate with African Americans Latino Sub-Groups Colombians (139) 66.9 Cubans (419) 61.3 Dominicans (335) 72.2 El Salvadorans (406) 68.2 Guatemalans (149) 64.4 Mexicans (5690) 62.4 Puerto Ricans (759) 61.8 1The numbers in the parentheses represent the number of respondents in that category 2The operational definition for the foreign-born includes all persons born outside the U.S., including being born in Puerto Rico.

36. Linked Fate? What is the take-away point? Kaufmann argument relevant? But the real question is: why do we care about this question? Or perhaps, why would we ever expect “linked fate”?