DIVERSITY/VOTING How America’s Diversity Explosion Is Changing the Political Landscape By William H. Frey The sweeping diversity explosion now underway in the U.S. will continue to impact the political landscape as the racial profiles of the electorate and voters continue to change.1 Testament to this is the election of the ’s first black president, Barack Obama, which can be attributed, in large part, to a growing minority electorate both nationally and in previously Republican-leaning Sun Belt states. This article reviews the nation’s new racial demographic shifts with an eye to how it has changed the electorate and outcomes of the past three presidential elections, and suggesting what it may mean for the future.

Rising Racial Diversity of this gap for Hispanics and Asians is attributable Among the U.S. and Voters to two factors. First, compared with whites, more The increased growth of new minorities—Hispanics Hispanics in America are under 18 years of age and Asians and persons of two or more races—has and are, therefore, too young to vote. Second, even begun to make its mark on the nation’s electorate among those Hispanics and Asians who are old by reducing the white portion of total voters. As enough to vote, a smaller share have become citi- recently as the 1980 presidential election, racial zens, even if they reside in the legally. minorities comprised less than 10 percent of voters, As a consequence, the portion of all Hispanics compared with fully 26 percent in 2012. Yet the and Asians who are eligible to vote—citizens age minority share of voters was still lower than its share 18 and above—constituted only about one-half or of the total U.S. population, which was 37 percent. less of their total . (See Figure A.) This The reason for this discrepancy between the contrasts with blacks and whites, of whom 69 per- racial makeup of voters and the population might be cent and 79 percent of their respective populations termed a “voter representation gap.” A large part were eligible to vote.

Figure A: Share of Population Eligible to Vote, 2012

Whites Blacks Hispanics Asians

20% 22% 1% 27% 34% 44% 52% 79% 4% 69% 26% 22%

Under Non-Citizen, Eligible Age 18 Age 18+ Voters

Source: Current Population Survey, November 2012 Supplement, from William H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Brookings Institution Press, 2015).

The Council of State Governments 267 DIVERSITY/VOTING

Figure B: U.S. Total and Eligible Voter Population by Race-Ethnicity, 2004–2012

100% 2% 4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% All others 5% 6% 8% 7% 8% 9% 11% 14% Asians 16% 11% 17% 12% 80% 12% 12% 13% 12% Hispanics 12% 12% 12% Blacks 60% Whites

40% 79% 75% 76% 73% 71% 74% 68% 65% 63%

20%

0% 2004 2008 2012 2004 2008 2012 2004 2008 2012 U.S. Total Eligible Voter Voters Population Population

Source: Current Population Survey November 2004, 2008, and 2012 Supplements from William H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Brookings Institution Press, 2015).

Figure B illustrates the lag in translating the His- despite constituting more than twice that share of panic and Asian representation in the total popu- the population. Whites, on the other hand, are far lation (left panel) to the population that is eligible more highly represented among voters than in the to vote (middle panel). For example, the Hispanic population as a whole. portion of the total population increased from 14 to 17 percent between the 2004 and 2012 elections. Higher Minority Turnout Impacted Yet, its portion of eligible voters increased from the 2008 and 2012 Popular Vote just 8 to 11 percent, respectively. In contrast, whites Although the nation’s electorate still lags behind are more highly represented among eligible voters its population with respect to its racial makeup, compared with the total population (71 percent the minority population made the difference in versus 63 percent in 2012). electing Barack Obama in the 2008 and 2012 The representation gap for Hispanics and presidential elections. A key reason for this was Asians that existed between the total popula- the improved turnout of racial minorities, which tion and eligible voters is even further widened magnified their clout among voters. among actual voters (Figure B, third panel). This Minority turnout is important for Democrats in is because, compared with whites and blacks, fewer presidential elections. Since the mid-1960s, minorities Hispanics and Asians who are eligible to vote actu- (as a whole) favored Democrats and whites favored ally show up at the polls. Because of their recent Republicans for president in the national popular residence status or lack of information, Hispanics vote. The black population has shown the most and Asians are less likely to register to vote and consistent voting patterns, favoring Democratic to cast ballots. Thus, Hispanics represented only 8 presidential candidates since the 1936 second-term percent of voters in the 2012 presidential election election of Franklin D. Roosevelt. While not as

268 The Book of the States 2016 DIVERSITY/VOTING

Figure C: Voter Turnout by Race in the 2004, 2008, and 2012 Presidential Elections

70% 2004 2008 2012 67% 66% 65% 66% 60% 64% 60%

50% 50% 47% 48% 48% 47% 40% 44%

30%

20%

10%

0% Whites Blacks Hispanics Asians

Note: Turnout rate is defined as percent of eligible voters who voted Source: Current Population Survey November 2004, 2008, and 2012 Supplements from William H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Brookings Institution Press, 2015). strongly favoring Democrats as blacks, Hispanics the sizes of minority gains rose to 21 million, and and Asians also have voted primarily for Demo- then 23 million votes, respectively. Meanwhile, cratic candidates in recent elections. Republicans showed a decline in white gains, down The higher voter turnout of minorities in 2008 to just 12 million in 2008, before registering an and 2012 is shown in Figure C. Black voter turnout insufficient gain of 18 million votes in 2012. increased to a point where nearly two-thirds of Obama’s continued gains in the minority vote black eligible voters cast ballots in 2008 and 2012. were attributable, in part, to the rise in the portion Along with the decline in white voter turnout, the of eligible voters who were minorities (shown in 2012 black voter turnout exceeded white voter Figure B). But it was also attributable to higher turnout for the first time since such statistics have turnout rates for minorities—increasing their been recorded. Although lower than voter turn- share of all voters—as well as the stronger ten- out for blacks, Hispanic and Asian turnouts were dency for these minorities to vote Democratic.2 higher in both Obama elections than in 2004. This higher turnout among all three groups enlarged Race and the Nation’s Battleground States the size and effect of these voters on the final elec- The increased minority influence on the popular tion outcome. vote outcomes of the 2008 and 2012 elections were Obama’s two victories followed the 2004 election magnified in the Electoral College vote outcomes in which Republican George W. Bush was reelected as the nation’s racial demographic shifts dispersed by 3 million votes—gaining a net of 16 million white across regions and states. In particular, the Sun votes and losing 13 million minorities. In the sub- Belt region is becoming part of an enlarged battle- sequent two elections, Obama versus John McCain ground of states as minorities become increasingly in 2008 and Obama versus Mitt Romney in 2012, represented there.

The Council of State Governments 269 DIVERSITY/VOTING

Figure D: Minority Percent of Eligible Voters, November 2012

Percent Minority:

Under 5% 5%–14% Dominant Minority: 15%–24% Hispanics 25%–34% Blacks 35% and over Neither

Source: Current Population Survey.

Figure D portrays the racial makeup of eligible Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, though their voters by state at the time of the 2012 election. much smaller Hispanic populations are rising as in Clearly, racial minorities make up a sizable presence other parts of that region. in many states including those not in traditional Although the nation’s electorate is still divided coastal settlement areas. Minorities constitute nearly somewhat between whiter heartland states and one-half or more of the electorates in Hawaii, New heavily minority coastal states, states in the Sun Mexico, California, Texas and D.C., and at least Belt stand in the forefront of racial electorate one-third or more in a swath of additional states in change. These include fast-growing Western inte- the South and interior West. (See Table C.) rior states that are receiving Hispanics and other Hispanics embody substantial and increasing minorities, and prosperous Southern states that portions of the electorates in many Western states are attracting blacks along with Hispanics from as well as Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New other regions. York and Texas. The Hispanic population may soon The geographic dispersion of new minorities and approach the black population in electoral clout. southward migration of blacks advantage the Dem- Minorities constitute more than one-quarter of the ocrats by enlarging the number of available battle- electorate in most Southern states and blacks are ground states. This allowed Democrats to cut into the largest group except in Florida, Oklahoma and a new electoral turf that Republicans held steadily Texas. Blacks still dominate the small minority for a long period, and these trends should pave the populations in whiter heartland states such as way for new state battlegrounds in the future.

270 The Book of the States 2016 DIVERSITY/VOTING

Figure E: States Won by Democratic and Republican Candidates, 2004, 2008, 2012

2004

Democrat Win, Due to Whites and Minorities Democrat Win, Due to 2008 Minorities but not Whites

Republican Win

2012

Source: William H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Brookings Institution Press, 2015).

In the 2004 election, as in the election four years when Southerner Jimmy Carter ran in 1976 and earlier, George W. Bush won by taking a nearly 1980, Republicans held fairly firm control of the clean sweep of the interior West and South, along South since the Civil Rights years when white with Great Plains and several Northern states— Southerners started voting in large numbers for most notably Ohio—that were then dubbed battle- Republican candidates. With very few exceptions, grounds (See Figure E). This Sun Belt sweep was the mostly white conservative-leaning interior not new to Republicans. Although they lost some West states voted for Republicans continuously Sun Belt states when Southerner Bill Clinton ran from 1968 to 2004, aside from the three-way elec- in the three-way elections of 1992 and 1996, and tions of the 1990s.

The Council of State Governments 271 DIVERSITY/VOTING

most of these South and West battleground states (North Carolina is the exception), Obama’s minority Table A: States with Largest support was strong enough to overcome an increased Voter Representation Gaps, white Republican margin in 2012. This was espe- cially crucial in Florida, where the white Republican November 2012 margin increased from 14 to 24 between 2008 and

Minority percent of 2012. But due to a larger minority turnout and increased Democratic margins, Obama won this State Population Voters Difference key battleground state again. Arizona...... 48 28 -20 California...... 60 43 -17 Racial minorities were responsible for winning Texas...... 58 41 -17 five Southern and Western states designated as New Mexico...... 58 43 -15 Nevada...... 47 33 -14 “battlegrounds” in 2008 (Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia) and a similar *Difference between Racial Minority Percent of Voters and Racial Minority Percent of Population in November 2012. number in 2012 (excluding North Carolina but Source: U.S. Census Current Population Survey, November including Colorado)—besting the white Republican Supplement 2012 (compiled from Public Use Microfile). advantages for these states. This means that the growth of Hispanics, Asians and other new minori- ties as well as the southward migration of blacks was opening the door to greater future Democratic The Democratic strongholds for the two elections prospects in the Sun Belt. prior to 2008 consisted of urbanized, racially diverse Among such states are Arizona and Texas, which coastal states such as California and New York and are among the five states with the highest minority a swath of New England, Northeastern, and Mid- voter representation gaps, (See Table A) due largely western states with industrial or farming histories. to their substantial and younger Hispanic popula- Although these states held constituencies reflecting tions. While both states have voted solidly Repub- both new and old strengths of the party—minorities, lican in past elections, this could change if current union workers, progressive professionals and women race-related Republican and Democratic voting —they did not represent the most rapidly growing proclivities continue. In these and other states, this parts of the country. representation gap should eventually close—albeit This geographic map changed with both the 2008 gradually. The “too young to vote” share of the and 2012 elections owing to the changing racial Hispanic population is projected to decrease over demographics of a number of New Sun Belt states. time and, as more in the population turn 18, it has This can be seen in Figure E, which shows that, in been estimated that they will add up to one million contrast to 2004, Obama won new West and South new voting-age Hispanic citizens annually for the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Nevada, foreseeable future.3 New Mexico, Virginia and, in 2008, North Carolina. Moreover, the ceiling for greater “new minority” The effect of the changing demography along with voter participation will increase for two reasons. the heightened minority enthusiasm for Obama is First, there will be higher rates of naturalization illustrated in Nevada. In 2004, Nevada’s voters were among Hispanic and Asian permanent residents 80 percent white, 8 percent Hispanic, 6 percent black, who are eligible to become citizens. Naturalized and 6 percent Asian or another race. Nevada’s white citizenship rates have increased in recent years, share dropped to 73 percent in 2008 and to 67 percent though there is room for further growth. Second, in 2012 such that, in the latter year, the voters included voter turnout rates among Hispanics and Asians, 15 percent Hispanics, 9 percent blacks, and 9 percent discussed below, will increase as members of these Asians or another race. Aside from demographics communities become more familiar with registra- alone, the Democratic voting margins (percent vot- tion and voting practices with the help of local gov- ing Democrat minus percent voting Republican) ernment and civic organizations. continued to increase particularly for Hispanics It is highly likely that the continued dispersion from 21 in 2004 to 54 in 2008 and 47 in 2012. of minorities to many of the interior Sun Belt states Shifts in this direction were evident in most of will continue into the future. This would make the the other Sun Belt states that Obama won in 2008, longstanding “solid Republican” South and much where a rise in the minority Democratic vote over- of the Mountain West become more open to gains came the Republican white vote. (See Table B) For by Democrats.4

272 The Book of the States 2016 DIVERSITY/VOTING

Table B: State Minority Percentages of Total Population, Eligible Voters and Voters, 2004, 2008 and 2012

Total population Eligible voters Voters State or other jurisdiction 2004 2008 2012 2004 2008 2012 2004 2008 2012 Alabama...... 30 30 34 27 27 29 26 27 29 Alaska...... 28 31 35 23 27 29 18 19 22 Arizona...... 43 42 48 27 30 35 19 22 28 Arkansas...... 24 23 28 19 18 21 16 15 17 California...... 56 58 60 43 45 49 35 40 43 Colorado...... 29 28 29 19 19 21 13 15 16 Connecticut...... 22 27 29 16 20 23 13 14 19 Delaware...... 29 32 35 24 25 27 19 22 24 Florida...... 37 38 43 28 31 34 24 29 33 Georgia...... 39 42 45 32 36 38 30 36 38 Hawaii...... 82 81 82 79 77 77 72 72 70 Idaho...... 18 17 19 11 12 10 5 8 7 Illinois...... 31 34 35 24 25 27 22 22 27 Indiana...... 15 16 16 12 11 12 11 10 12 Iowa...... 9 13 14 5 7 8 4 6 6 Kansas...... 20 21 24 12 15 16 9 12 11 Kentucky...... 11 12 13 9 9 10 9 9 9 Louisiana...... 37 39 38 32 34 34 31 32 35 Maine...... 4 6 6 4 5 4 4 4 3 Maryland...... 39 43 46 33 36 37 30 37 37 Massachusetts...... 19 22 27 13 15 19 9 11 16 Michigan...... 22 22 24 18 18 20 17 18 18 Minnesota...... 13 15 16 9 9 10 8 7 9 Mississippi...... 41 40 43 37 37 38 39 38 40 Missouri...... 18 18 19 15 14 15 15 15 15 Montana...... 11 10 13 7 8 10 5 7 8 Nebraska...... 18 16 18 11 10 11 7 7 8 Nevada...... 35 41 47 24 30 35 20 27 33 New Hampshire...... 6 6 10 4 5 6 3 4 5 New Jersey...... 34 41 41 25 32 32 23 29 30 New Mexico...... 56 60 58 50 52 50 44 45 43 New York...... 38 39 43 30 31 34 24 27 33 North Carolina...... 33 33 36 26 26 28 25 25 31 North Dakota...... 7 14 16 6 11 12 4 10 9 Ohio...... 17 19 19 14 15 15 14 15 17 Oklahoma...... 28 31 36 23 24 30 19 22 25 Oregon...... 16 21 22 10 13 14 7 10 11 Pennsylvania...... 16 18 21 13 14 16 11 13 15 Rhode Island...... 19 19 25 11 13 16 8 11 15 South Carolina...... 33 33 34 29 29 30 27 31 31 South Dakota...... 10 12 17 6 8 13 4 5 9 Tennessee...... 22 24 24 17 19 20 16 19 21 Texas...... 52 56 58 42 45 48 34 37 41 Utah...... 13 15 21 7 10 14 4 5 8 Vermont...... 5 5 7 4 3 5 3 3 5 Virginia...... 31 33 34 25 26 27 19 26 26 Washington...... 25 24 28 17 19 21 14 14 18 West Virginia...... 6 5 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 Wisconsin...... 15 17 17 10 11 12 9 9 11 Wyoming...... 10 11 14 8 8 11 6 6 6 Dist. of Columbia...... 69 68 63 64 64 57 59 60 57

Source: U.S. Census Current Population Survey, November Supplement, 2004, 2008, 2012 (compiled from Public Use Microfiles).

The Council of State Governments 273 DIVERSITY/VOTING

Table C: State Racial Compositions of Total Population, Eligible Voters and Voters, November 2012 (Percentages)

Total population Eligible voters Voters State or other jurisdiction White Black Hispanic Other White Black Hispanic Other White Black Hispanic Other Alabama...... 66 26 4 4 71 26 1 3 71 26 0 3 Alaska...... 65 3 6 26 71 4 4 21 78 2 2 18 Arizona...... 52 3 35 10 65 4 23 9 72 4 17 7 Arkansas...... 72 15 8 5 79 15 3 3 83 14 1 2 California...... 40 5 40 15 51 7 28 15 57 7 23 13 Colorado...... 71 4 21 5 79 3 14 4 84 2 10 3 Connecticut...... 71 10 12 7 77 9 9 5 81 9 7 3 Delaware...... 65 21 10 5 73 20 4 3 76 19 2 2 Florida...... 57 15 24 4 66 14 17 4 67 13 17 3 Georgia...... 55 31 8 6 62 30 4 4 62 32 3 3 Hawaii...... 18 2 11 69 23 2 8 68 30 2 5 62 Idaho...... 81 1 14 4 90 0 6 3 93 0 4 3 Illinois...... 65 14 14 7 73 14 9 4 73 17 5 4 Indiana...... 84 9 4 3 88 8 3 1 88 9 2 1 Iowa...... 86 3 7 5 92 2 3 3 94 2 2 2 Kansas...... 76 6 11 8 84 5 5 5 89 4 3 4 Kentucky...... 87 7 3 3 90 6 1 2 91 7 1 2 Louisiana...... 62 31 4 3 66 30 2 2 65 31 2 2 Maine...... 94 1 1 4 96 1 1 3 97 1 1 2 Maryland...... 54 28 9 9 63 28 4 5 63 29 4 4 Massachusetts...... 73 6 11 9 81 6 7 6 84 6 6 5 Michigan...... 76 13 5 6 80 13 3 3 82 13 3 2 Minnesota...... 84 5 4 7 90 3 2 4 91 3 2 4 Mississippi...... 57 37 2 4 62 35 1 2 60 39 0 1 Missouri...... 81 12 4 3 85 11 2 2 85 11 2 2 Montana...... 87 1 2 10 90 0 2 8 92 0 1 6 Nebraska...... 82 4 9 4 89 3 5 3 92 4 3 2 Nevada...... 53 8 28 11 65 9 17 10 67 9 15 9 New Hampshire...... 90 1 4 4 94 1 2 2 95 1 2 2 New Jersey...... 59 12 19 10 68 12 13 7 70 14 11 6 New Mexico...... 42 2 43 13 50 3 38 9 57 3 35 5 New York...... 57 15 18 11 66 15 12 7 67 17 11 5 North Carolina...... 64 21 10 5 72 22 3 4 69 26 2 3 North Dakota...... 84 1 3 12 88 1 3 8 91 1 2 7 Ohio...... 81 12 3 4 85 11 2 2 83 13 2 2 Oklahoma...... 64 7 8 20 70 7 5 18 75 7 3 15 Oregon...... 78 2 10 10 86 1 4 9 89 1 3 7 Pennsylvania...... 79 10 6 4 84 10 4 2 85 10 3 2 Rhode Island...... 75 6 14 5 84 5 8 3 85 6 7 2 South Carolina...... 66 27 4 3 70 27 1 2 69 29 1 2 South Dakota...... 83 1 3 13 87 1 2 10 91 0 1 8 Tennessee...... 76 15 6 4 80 15 3 2 79 16 3 2 Texas...... 42 12 41 6 52 13 30 5 59 15 22 4 Utah...... 79 1 14 5 86 1 8 4 92 1 5 2 Vermont...... 93 1 2 5 95 1 1 3 95 1 1 3 Virginia...... 66 19 7 8 73 19 3 6 74 19 3 5 Washington...... 72 3 11 14 79 3 6 12 82 2 4 11 West Virginia...... 94 3 1 2 96 2 1 1 96 3 1 1 Wisconsin...... 83 6 6 5 88 5 4 3 89 6 2 3 Wyoming...... 86 1 9 4 89 1 6 4 94 1 3 2 Dist. of Columbia...... 37 48 11 5 43 49 4 4 43 49 4 3

Source: U.S. Census Current Population Survey, November Supplement, 2012 (compiled from Public Use Microfiles).

274 The Book of the States 2016 DIVERSITY/VOTING

Still, this longer-term prognostication makes some strong assumptions. First, that longstanding white, Republican preferences and minority, Democratic preferences continue into the future. Second, that many of the nation’s industrial Midwest states, which will continue to remain “whiter” than the rest of the country, shall remain Democratic. At least in the short term, the latter assumption may not hold, given that recent Democratic wins were fairly small in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and that Republicans could also be competitive in Iowa and Wisconsin and perhaps Michigan. This is because largely white Republican-leaning baby boomers and seniors could turnout heavily for a popular candidate in these states and could, at least in the short run, counter the growing Demo- cratic-leaning minority populations in the Sun Belt. Still, in the long run, both parties will come to recognize that the larger minority shares of the electorate will not only continue but also need to be reckoned with by adjusting their messages and policy agendas appropriately.

Notes 1 William H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Brookings Institution Press, 2015). 2 William H. Frey, ”Minority Turnout Determined the 2012 Election” (Washington DC: Brookings Institution, May 10, 2013). http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/ 2013/05/10-election-2012-minority-voter-turnout-frey. 3 Pew Research Center, “An Awakened Giant: The His- panic Electorate is Likely to Double by 2030.” (Washington DC: Pew Hispanic Center, November 14, 2012), p. 7. http:// www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/11/hispanic_vote_likely_ to_double_by_2030_11-14-12.pdf. 4 See William H. Frey, Ruy Teixeira and Robert Griffin, “America’s Electoral Future: How Changing Demographics Could Impact Presidential Elections from 2016 to 2032” (Washington DC: Center for American Progress, American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, February 2016). http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/ 2016/02/25-states-of-change-frey/SOC2016report.pdf?la=en.

About the author William H. Frey is a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution and research professor in population studies at the University of Michigan. An expert on U.S. demographics and American political demographics, he is author of Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Brookings Institution Press, 2015).

The Council of State Governments 275