1. Perspectives on Latino-Black Relations in the U.S.: Mass and Elite-level Analyses* * (Or…here’s part of what I’ve been working on the last 8 months) Rodney E. Hero (With LNS Colleagues, and with Robert Preuhs) CSDP Presentation May 1, 2008

2. Some Issues addressed in (my) recent research: An overview and summary of some recent work: Demographic change and the Evolution of American politics ‘Minority’ and other (inter)group relations Ideas and/or Interests How these may differ in different arenas of politics federalism, “scope of conflict,” etc. - Institutions

3. Previous related research 1. Mass-level: * Recent survey findings on Latino Attitudes Raleigh-Durham study (McClain, JOP 2006) – on Latinos and stereotyping Latino National Survey 2. Other research questions: Institutions and Policy (Representation) * Urban politics focus (case studies, and aggregate studies) Browning, Marshall, and Tabb (1984, and several later) McClain – on socioeconomic and political competition in cities …Mixed, complicated findings * Little/no research at level of the States regarding Inter-group relations (studies focus on one group or another) Often assumes conflict/competition OR cooperation

4. This presentation a. Begin to bring together two strands of research on issues regarding Latinos and Blacks (and Whites) * public opinion (mass) * representative institutions (elites/national) b. Builds on prior research -- evidence from the LNS and elsewhere regarding questions about competition or cooperation assumption of Latino inter-group relations

5. The Hypothesized Relative Importance of Ideas and Interests at the National v. Local (Institutions) Levels of American Politics in Relation to Black and Latino Relations National Ideas Interests Local

6. I. Latinos’ (Mass) Attitudes’ Regarding Blacks: Variations On Different dimensions of inter-group relations (socioeconomic, political, etc.) In Different Contexts (types of states)

7. How much does Latinos doing well depend on African Americans doing well? Respondents in 2006 Latino National Survey“Linked Fate” with African Americans NativitySome/A lot Native Born (2408) 1 53.4% Foreign-born 2 (5704) 67.0 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.

8. Extent of Commonality among Latinos regarding Jobs, Education and Income Attainment with African Americans and Whites Respondents in 2006 Latino National Survey Commonality with African Americans Commonality with Whites NativitySome/A lot Native Born (2408) 1 67.9%56.1% Foreign-born 2 (5704) 45.945.1 Latino Sub-Groups Colombians (139) 46.853.2 Cubans (419) 51.355.4 Dominicans (335) 53.743.6 El Salvadorans (406) 48.845.1 Guatemalans (149) 40.943.6 Mexicans (5690) 51.047.2 Puerto Ricans (759) 65.554.2 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.

9. Extent of Commonality among Latinos regarding their Political Situation with African Americans and Whites Respondents in 2006 Latino National Survey Commonality with African Americans Commonality with Whites NativitySome/A lot Native Born (2408) 1 62.8%48.7% Foreign-born 2 (5704) 43.464.1 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.

10. Unpacking Latino Views further: Contexts (‘traditional’ vs ‘emerging’ states) The Latino population, especially immigrants, has moved well beyond traditional states such as California, Texas, and New York to include considerable and increasing presence in such states as Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina.The Latino population, especially immigrants, has moved well beyond traditional states such as California, Texas, and New York to include considerable and increasing presence in such states as Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina. These latter states -- Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina – are also states that had previously had little experience with immigrants and/or have substantially large African-American populations.These latter states -- Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina – are also states that had previously had little experience with immigrants and/or have substantially large African-American populations.

11. Latinos Seeing Commonalities with Other Groups Response Choices: nothing, little, some, a lot, DK/no answer Thinking about issues like job opportunities, educational attainment or income, how much do [selected ethnic term] have in common with other racial groups in the United States today? Would you say [selected ethnic term] have….. in common with African Americans: In all 7 states more respondents say “some” or “a lot” -- ranging from 46% to 57% -- than say “nothing” or “little.” However, in the 4 “emerging states” all are at 50 percent or less saying “some” or “a lot,” while more in the other states say “some” or “a lot”: CA (51%), TX (52 %), NY (57%)

12. Thinking about issues like job opportunities, educational attainment or income, how much do [selected ethnic term] have in common with other racial groups in the United States today? Would you say [selected ethnic term] have common with whites: Varied pattern, hard to summarize, except that in all states fewer respondents answer “some” or “a lot” than they did for the similar question regarding Blacks. Also, CA only state where more say ‘nothing/little’ than ‘some/a lot’ (47%/44%). Socioeconomic Commonalities with Whites

13. Latinos’ views of Inter–Group Competition with Blacks

14. JOBS: Some have suggested that [selected ethnic term] are in competition with African Americans.…Would you tell me if you believe there is strong competition weak competition or no competition at all with African Americans? How about… “competition in getting jobs” In all seven states (only) about a quarter (25-28 percent) perceived “strong competition” and about 15-20 percent or so sees “weak competition;” the plurality choice in every state is “no competition at all.” New York stands out in having clearly the highest proportion, 36 percent, saying “strong competition.”

15. Competition in…“having access to education and quality schools? In 4 emerging states, 47-52 percent say “no competition at all;” consistently 25-27 percent in these states say “strong competition.” Percent saying “strong competition” is highest in NY (35%) and TX (32%)

16. Competition re “getting jobs with the city or state government?” 42 to 48% in emerging states say “no competition,” and roughly 28 % say “strong competition.” GA stands out in this group, with 33% percent saying “strong competition” The other three states tend to have higher percentage (than “emerging”) saying “strong competition”: CA 35%; TX 33% and, most strikingly, NY 43%.

17. Competition in …Political Representation “Having [selected ethnic term] representatives in elected office” In all 4 emerging states ‘no competition’ is the most common answer (41, 39, 42, and 28 percent for AR, GA, IA, and NC, respectively). GA is highest with “strong competition,” 36%. IN CONTRAST: In the three others states, ‘strong competition’ is the most common answer: CA 38%, TX 38%, and NY 42%

18. Concept of “Linked Fate” with Others How much does [Latinos] doing well depend on African Americans doing well? Percent saying “some” or “a lot” in 4 emerging states ranges from 58% (NC) to 65% (AR). Interestingly, percent saying “some” or “a lot” is highest in NY (67%). In TX is 64% and in CA 53% say this.

19. II. Latino-Black Relations -- Elite level: Latinos and Blacks in the U.S. House (using ‘advocacy group’ evidence) Dimensions examined: Agendas (advocacy group scorecards) Positions (advocacy group scorecards) * Voting patterns (Black and Latino MCs voting, on advocacy group scorecards)*

20. Initial Findings on Salience and Congruence (Supporting data follow on next 2 slides) Salience (agendas, in NAACP and NHLA scorecards) similarity/overlap on group scorecards little overlap found Congruence (positions, in NAACP and NHLA scorecards)) very high (complete congruence when scorecards do overlap) We also examined (a) Congressional testimony and (b) filing of “friend of the court” (amicus) briefs. * Overall: We found no evidence of conflict; we think there is lots of tacit non-cooperation/independence, (coordination?)*

21. Policy Salience and Congruence of Minority Advocacy Groups’ Agendas (Number of cases included in Congressional Scorecards and Degree of Salience and Congruence) CongressNHLANAACP Shared Salience (% of NHLA Total; % of NAACP Total) Congruence (% of Shared) 105 th (1997-1998) 3323 7 (21.1%; 30.4%) 7 (100%) 106 th (1999-2000) 3630 6 (16.67%; 20.0%) 6 (100%) 107 th (2001-2002) 3450 12 (35.3%; 24.0%) 12 (100%) 108 th (2003-2004) 2463 3 (12.5%; 4.8%) 3 (100%) Total127166 28 (22.1%; 16.9%) 28 (100%)

23. Basic Evidence on Voting Patterns

24. Mean NAACP and NHLA Support, by Party and Racial/Ethnic Background of the Member of Congress, 104th – 108th Congresses. NAACP Scores BD=Black Dems, LD=Latino Dems, WD=White Dems, WR=White Republicans, BR=Black Republicans, LR=Latino Republicans

25. NHLA Support Scores

26. ExaminingVoting Patterns Theoretical Expectations Design Findings

27. Predicted Effects of Black and Latino Representation and Minority Population Proportions on NAACP and NHLA Scorecards Cooperation/ Compatibility Tacit Non- Cooperation Independence Conflict/ Competition NAACP Scorecard NHLA Scorecard NAACP Scorecard NHLA Scorecard NAACP Scorecard NHLA Scorecard Repstv. Black Rep Positive No EffectPositiveNegative Latino Rep Positive No EffectPositiveNegativePositive Population Proportion Black Positive No EffectPositiveNegative Proportion Latino Positive No EffectPositiveNegativePositive Note: Cell entries report the direction of the expected effect. No effect indicates there an expected null relationship.

28. Two Questions regarding Voting patterns Degree to which descriptive representation, partisan affiliation, racial/ethnic constituency and class affect voting patterns Most important of the two (here): Degree to which racial and ethnic descriptive representation leads to support that crosses racial/ethnic groups

29. Design 104 th – 108 th U.S. House Members Ratings NAACP and NHLA Scorecards as Dependent variables Limitations of these Limitations of alternative measures Independent Variables –Race/ethnicity of legislator –Party Affiliation (Republican dummy variable) –District Demographics Racial Composition Social and Economic Indicators (urbanization, poverty, income, education) –Interactions between Party and Race/Ethnicity

30. Estimates of NAACP and NHLA Scorecard Ratings, 104 th through the 108 th Congresses [abbreviated Table] Independent Variables 104 th 105 th Congress 106 th Congress 107 th Congress 108 th Congress NAACP NHLANAACPNHLANAACPNHLANAACPNHLA Rep Black Representative 28.40*** (3.73) 11.45** (1.44) 16.62** (4.00) 10.72** (4.00) 15.09** (3.40) 12.52** (2.78) 14.49** (2.90) 8.93*** (2.38) 5.36 (3.70) Black Rep X Party -23.04** (8.81) -5.80 (10.09) -14.19 (10.45) -22.25 (14.65) -23.49 (12.46) -18.03 (9.94) -16.50 (10.76) N/A Latino Representative 12.56* (5.01).23 (4.59) -1.04 (5.07) 3.45 (5.22) 11.57** (4.43) 12.06** (3.57) 11.19** (3.88) 5.44 (2.96) 2.25 (4.62) Latino Rep X Party -7.42 (11.40) 17.95* (8.60) 28.71** (8.99) 10.31 (8.81) 12.19 (7.49) -10.92 (6.92) -5.60 (7.66) -6.65 (4.77) 3.52 (7.52) PartyRepublican -32.94*** (1.50) -67.12** (1.44) -62.50** (1.50) -49.31** (1.53) -67.77** (1.30) -55.78** (1.07) -56.76** (1.15) -54.46** (0.95) -72.35** (1.48)

31. Estimates of NAACP and NHLA Scorecard Ratings, 104 th through the 108 th Congresses Excluding Descriptive Representation Variables [abbreviated Table] Independent Variables 104th 105th 106th107 th 108 th NAACP NHLANAACPNHLANAACPNHLANAACPNHLA Party and Population Interactions Republican -29.07*** (2.43) 66.78** (2.31) -5.98*** (2.45) -4.17*** (2.45) -6.44*** (2.14) -5.45*** (1.70) -5.53*** (1.84) -4.07*** (1.45) -6.65*** (2.26) Party X Prop. Black -14.63 (12.56) -22.11 (11.85) -31.74* (12.47) -29.49* (12.86) -30.08** (11.20) -24.87** (9.03) -28.49** (9.31) -2.52*** (7.68) -19.00 (12.07) Party X Prop. Latino 4.55 (15.68) 19.50 (13.45) 4.77 (14.92) -30.90* (15.33) 1.34 (13.35) -7.44 (10.84) -10.59 (11.81) -2.79 (9.12) -1.04 (13.88) Party X Prop. Foreign Born -44.24* (22.54) -6.08 (20.59) -1.57 (22.65) 38.55 (22.43) -12.15 (19.53) -23.94 (16.52) -14.25 (18.14) -33.46* (14.42) -35.15 (22.20)

32. Summary of Findings on Black-Latino MCs’ Voting in Congress on NAACP & NHLA Importance of representatives’ political party affiliation (re)affirmed Racial background of representative matters (beyond party); is clearest for Blacks, modestly for Latino MCs Absence of independent effects of districts’ racial/ethnic composition (though evidence of racial ‘backlash’) Little support for ‘class-based’ interpretation (i.e., impact of indicators of income, education, poverty) * Some degree of heightened support across minority groups, but not uniform *

33. Some General Implications considering mass v. elite analyses: * Different findings when considering: cooperation vs conflict is more complicated than usually understood. elites’ relations (two types of elites) vs mass attitudes national versus local (‘scope’) * Latinos’ views, Blacks’ views, Whites’ views of importance, and types of issues * Race and Representation – findings question the view minority representatives not essential to adequate minority representation * American multi-ethnic pluralism & democracy Indeed multi-dimensional, more so than typically acknowledged Impact of institutions, and various actors in different arenas

34. Whites’ and Latinos’ (Mexicans’) Views of “What it means to be fully American in the eyes of most Americans” (% saying ‘very important,’ in LNS and CCES) 3.60% 12.30% 59.10% 70.60% 17.10% 37.60% 43.90% 83.70% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% EnglishAmerican BornChristianWhite Mexican Whites Perceptions of ‘Ethnocultural’ Americanism MexicanWhites

35. Policy Typology Canon (1999): Directly racial Partly racial Non-racial (explicitly) (implicit) Race Class and race Party/Class (and/or..?) (and/or..?) Also, procedural/opportunity vs outcomes orientation

36. Bill Sponsorship by Type (Racial, Part Racial, and Non-) by Black, Latino, and White MCs (103rd Congress – Data from Canon 1999)