California Counts POPULATION TRENDS and PROFILES Check

Public Policy Institute of California California Counts POPULATION TRENDS AND PROFILES

Volume 1 Number 2 • January 2000

Check One or More . . . Mixed Race and Ethnicity in California By Sonya M. Tafoya

Criticisms from an increasingly diverse racial and ethnic population Summary in the United States have led the Ofﬁce of Management and Budget (OMB) to revise federal standards for collecting race and ethnic data. One change will allow multiracial Americans to check as many race categories as apply to them. Although this change has caused much speculation, exactly how the enumeration of multiracial Americans will affect current public policies remains to be seen. This issue of California Counts1 provides a context for discussing the multiracial/ethnic population of California, focusing speciﬁcally on the increasing number of multiracial/ethnic births in the state. Data are drawn from vital statistics birth records from 1982 to 1997. Multiracial/ethnic births increased from about 12 percent of all births in 1982 to about 14 percent in 1997 and they were more common among native-born mothers than among foreign-born mothers. In 1997, approximately 20 percent of native-born mothers but only 7 percent of foreign-born mothers gave birth to children of mixed race/ethnicity. The number of multiracial/ethnic births varies across counties. In 1997, for example, 11 percent of Los Angeles County births were of mixed race/ethnicity; in Sacramento County, the number was 19 percent. Public Policy Institute of California

California Counts Check One or More . . .

Context Recognizing the growing complexity of racial and ethnic Subscribe now n 1977, the OMB established identity in the nation, a variety to receive future Iminimum categories for the col- of critics charged that the original editions of lection, record-keeping, and pre- categories no longer reflected the California Counts, sentation of data by race and increasing diversity of the nation. ethnicity. Table 1 illustrates the Among the critics were a group a FREE publication two permissible formats for col- of multiracial Americans who of PPIC lecting and reporting this infor- charged that the established cate- mation. In the two-question gories forced them to deny their See the enclosed format, two questions were asked heritage by selecting a single race.4 about race and ethnicity; thus, In 1993, the OMB announced card for details. persons who reported Hispanic that it would undertake a compre- ancestry could also report the hensive review of these categories. racial group that they identified As part of the OMB review with. In contrast, the one-question process, the National Center for format merged race and ethnicity. Education Statistics and the Office Respondents were asked to select for Civil Rights in the Depart- one of the following five catego- ment of Education conducted a ries: American Indian or Alaskan survey to determine how schools Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, collect, maintain, and report race black, white, and Hispanic. The and ethnic data on their students. Census Bureau used the OMB The report revealed that public two-question format in the 1980 schools in the West were the least and 1990 Censuses.2 Federal and likely to use the minimum five state agencies were permitted to standard categories, whereas collect racial and ethnic data in schools in the Northeast were the more detail provided that the data most likely to use only the mini- could be reduced to the minimum mum five categories. To reflect five categories of the one-question their diversity, schools in the West format. This minimum standard were adding categories and then was established to meet statutory aggregating up to the standard five requirements associated with civil categories as required for federal rights monitoring and enforce- reporting. ment.3 Among the 1977 OMB The sources of diversity in the categories, no provision existed West included an increase in inter- for detailed enumeration of multiracial marriage and increased immi- racial Americans. Multiracial gration.5 California has been on Americans were instructed to the leading edge in both of these select the racial category that most national trends. Indeed, the Cali- closely reflected their recognition fornia State Supreme Court ruling in their community. ending legal barriers to intermar-

2 Public Policy Institute of California

California Counts Check One or More . . .

riage in California took effect in the occurrence of monoracial The sources of diversity 1948—nearly two decades before and monoethnic births of Asians, in the West included an the U.S. Supreme Court took African Americans, and Hispanic increase in interracial action in 1967 to remove all in California? (4) What is the remaining miscegenation laws in racial/ethnic proﬁle of California’s marriage and increased the nation.6 And as of 1997, about multiracial/ethnic newborns? immigration. 25 percent of the state’s popula- The report concludes with a tion was foreign-born compared discussion of how the enumera- to 10 percent in the nation.7 tion of multiracial/ethnic births In 1997, after its comprehen- may affect public policy, examin- sive review, the OMB announced ing the effect of self-identiﬁcation revisions of the federal guidelines for collecting data by race and ethnicity (Table 2). The new guide- Table 1. OMB Classification Matrix, 1977–1997 lines instruct people to select one or more racial categories.8 Census Characteristic Two-Question Format One-Question Format 2000 will employ the revised categories, and other federal pro- Race White White, not of Hispanic origin grams will adopt the standards Black Black, not of Hispanic origin no later than January 1, 2003. Asian or Pacific Islander Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian or American Indian or Alaskan Ways to tabulate the new data Alaskan Native Native remain an important, unresolved Hispanic issue.9 Clearly, if multiracial Ethnicity Hispanic origin respondents are tabulated in a Not of Hispanic origin manner exclusive of their monoracial component groups, the numerical strength of monoracial groups will be diminished. Table 2. OMB Revised Classification Matrix, As a precursor to data that October 1997 to Present will be available as these standards are adopted, this report documents Characteristic Two-Question Format One-Question Format the rise in multiracial/ethnic births in California from 1982 to Race White White 1997, addressing the following Black or African American Black or African American questions: (1) What is the overall Asian Asian trend in multiracial/ethnic births American Indian or Alaska American Indian or Alaska Native Native in California? (2) What is the Native Hawaiian or Other Native Hawaiian or Other relationship between immigration Pacific Islander Pacific Islander and multiracial/ethnic births in Hispanic or Latino California? (3) How does the Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino occurrence of multiracial/ethnic Not Hispanic or Latino births in California compare to

3 Public Policy Institute of California

California Counts Check One or More . . .

and tabulation methodology since the race/ethnicity of the ethnic births over the past 17 on the relative size of racial and child in this study is derived data years. As a percentage of total ethnic groups. rather than self-identified data, it births in the state, multiracial/ may overestimate the number of ethnic births rose from just under multiracial/ethnic births. In other 12 percent in 1982 to just over Data Source words, some infants classified as 14 percent in 1997 (Figure 1). multiracial/ethnic in this report This change represents a numeri- ata for this report are derived might be identified as monoracial cal increase in multiracial/ethnic Dfrom California Vital Statis- or monoethnic by their parents.11 births from about 50,000 in 1982 tics Birth Records. The birth to about 70,000 in 1997. records include information for The absence of a precipitous mothers’ and fathers’ nativity, Trends and Patterns increase in the occurrence of race, and Hispanic origin.10 Vital multiracial/ethnic births can be Statistics Birth Records employ lthough it has a racially and explained by California’s status as a two-question format for collect- Aethnically diverse population, a large immigrant-receiving state. ing racial and ethnic information. and legal barriers to intermarriage Numerous studies have shown Although the racial and ethnic were abandoned relatively early that compared to the native-born, data in the birth records distin- compared to many other states, immigrants are less likely to marry guish several Asian racial sub- California has experienced only a a member of a different racial/ groups and several Hispanic ethnic moderate increase in multiracial/ ethnic group. This body of litera- subgroups, this report aggregates the data into the current OMB one-question format: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Figure 1. Percentage of Multiracial/Ethnic Births in black or African American, His- California, 1982–1997 panic or Latino (of any race), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 16 Islander, and white. A multiracial/ethnic child 14 is defined as one who has one

) 12

parent from one of the racial/ % (

s ethnic groups noted above and h 10 t r i b

the other parent from another. a i 8 Because maternal and paternal n r o f i race/ethnicity data are coded in l

a 6 C

discrete monoracial and mono- l a t ethnic categories, it is impossible o

T 4 to determine if either parent is multiracial or multiethnic; thus, 2 the number of multiracial/ethnic 0 births reported here may be 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 biased downward. Conversely,

4 Public Policy Institute of California

California Counts Check One or More . . .

ture cites various explanations for Figure 2. Multiracial/Ethnic Births to Native-Born and this tendency. Explanations include Foreign-Born Mothers, California, 1982–1997 the fact that the foreign-born may be married at the time of immi-

) 22 %

gration, they might be more likely (

y 20 Native-born t to live in ethnic enclaves, they i v

i Foreign-born t 18 might be more closely tied to a a n

s 16 culture that resists out-marriage, r e h or they might encounter language t 14 12 o m barriers. In fact, data on legal

y 12 b

immigrants to California in 1996 s h

t 10 r indicate that 68 percent of new i b

c 8 female immigrants and 58 percent i n h of male immigrants were already t 6 e / l a married when they arrived in i 4 c

13 a r

California. i t

l 2 Figure 2 charts the trends in u M 0 multiracial/ethnic births to Cali- 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 198719881989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 fornia mothers by immigrant status. The ﬁgure shows that the rise in multiracial/ethnic births is a native-born phenomenon. Multi- racial/ethnic births to native-born mothers rose dramatically between Figure 3. Births to Native-Born and Foreign-Born Mothers, 1982 and 1997—from about 14 California, 1982–1997 percent to 21 percent, a 50 percent change. In contrast, less than 100

8 percent of births to foreign-born 90 Native-born mothers were multiracial/ethnic Foreign-born 80 in 1982, and the number has remained relatively stable over the 70 )

same 15-year period. %

( 60

s h

Figure 3 shows that the share t r

i 50 b

of births to immigrant women l a t

o 40

has increased by nearly 50 percent T since 1982. By 1997, births to 30 foreign-born mothers accounted 20 for roughly 45 percent of all births to California mothers. The size of 10 the foreign-born population cou- 0 pled with its relatively low occur- 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 198719881989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 rence of multiracial/ethnic births

5 Public Policy Institute of California

California Counts Check One or More . . .

Figure 4. Racial/Ethnic Composition of California has tempered the overall increase in multiracial/ethnic births in Newborns, 1997 California. 45 Figure 4 shows the racial/ ethnic composition of California 40 newborns in 1997. Multiracial/ 35 ethnic births outnumbered both monoracial Asian births and ) 30 % (

monoracial black births. The s

h 25 t

r relative size of this multiracial/ i b

l 20 ethnic group provides a context a t o

T for understanding the concerns 15 raised by various civil rights 10 groups. Indeed, the goal of accu-

5 rately tracking this population complicates established tabulation 0 Hispanic White Multiracial/ Asian Black procedures for monitoring and ethnic tracking civil rights. For example, it is still unclear whether or how statistically small multiple-race responses will be aggregated into larger groups.14 Figure 5 illustrates the relative proportions of California’s Figure 5. Profile of Multiracial/Ethnic Births, multiracial/ethnic births for the California, 1997 largest multiracial/ethnic groups in 1997. Births to couples in 8% which one partner was white 2% 6% non-Hispanic and the other was Hispanic, Asian, or black account- 53% Hispanic/white ed for roughly 75 percent of all 7% Asian/white multiracial/ethnic births in 1997. Black/white The majority of these births were Hispanic/black to Hispanic/white (non-Hispanic) 9% Hispanic-Asian couples (53 percent). Births to Asian/black mixed Hispanic/black, Hispanic/ Asian, and Asian/black couples Other mixed accounted for 15 percent of multiracial/ethnic births. The remain- 15% ing mixed births were to couples in which one partner was an American Indian or Alaska Native,

6 Public Policy Institute of California

California Counts Check One or More . . .

native Hawaiian, or other Paciﬁc is more highly segregated than California has Islander. Sacramento, especially for Hispan- experienced only a 18 It is unclear how continued ics and African Americans. Fur- moderate increase immigration will affect the trend thermore, group size differences in multiracial/ethnic births in Cal- are dramatic between Los Angeles in multiracial/ethnic ifornia.15 Generally, intermarriage and Sacramento. For example, in births over the past rates for Hispanics and Asians 1997, 62 percent of births in Los 17 years. increase with immigrant genera- Angeles were to Hispanic mothers, tion. For example, intermarriage whereas only 21 percent of births estimates for Hispanics are 0.08, in Sacramento were to Hispanic 0.32, and 0.57 for ﬁrst, second, mothers. and third generations, respec- tively.16 Thus, the effect of immigration will be determined by Implications nativity and immigrant generation and also by group size, residential of a Growing segregation, and the sex ratios of Multiracial/Ethnic future immigrant populations. For example, members of small popu- Population lations are much more likely to out-marry because their chances he nation is far richer in racial of meeting a potential mate from Tand ethnic diversity than it their own racial/ethnic group are was just 30 years ago. In fact, lower than meeting individuals an increasing number of people from other groups.17 nationwide embody this racial and Table 3 shows how several ethnic diversity by virtue of their California counties rank in terms of their percentage of multiracial/ ethnic births and percentage of foreign-born mothers, clearly Table 3. Multiracial/Ethnic Births and Percentage of showing an inverse relationship Mothers Foreign-Born, Selected Counties, 1997 between the two. As noted above, factors such as residential segre- County % of Mothers % Multiracial/Ethnic gation and group size also play Foreign-Born, 1997 Births, 1997 important roles in determining Los Angeles 58 10 the occurrence of multiracial/ ethnic births. For example, the Orange 52 13 Los Angeles and Sacramento Santa Clara 52 15 metropolitan areas differ in their Alameda 42 17 degree of racial and ethnic residen- San Diego 41 18 tial segregation. Various indices of Sacramento 27 19 segregation show that Los Angeles

7 Public Policy Institute of California

California Counts Check One or More . . .

Between 1960 and mixed racial or ethnic ancestry. the Equal Employment Oppor- 1990, the number of Between 1960 and 1990, the tunity Act. For this reason, organi- interracial couples number of interracial couples in zations such as the NAACP Legal the nation increased nearly ten- Defense and Education Fund, in the nation increased fold, rising from 157,000 to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil nearly tenfold. roughly 1,500,000; and the 1990 Rights Under Law, and the Equal U.S. Census counted nearly 2 mil- Employment Advisory Council lion children nationwide living in have expressed reservations about multiracial households.19 collecting multiracial data before As for California, the release establishing tabulation methods of Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal that would not impede civil rights data showed that one out of every efforts.22 20 people in the City of Sacra- The analysis of birth record mento identified themselves as data presented here, in contrast to multiracial.20 This is more than the Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal double the 2 percent benchmark analysis noted above, illustrates that Census officials expect to find how various methods for deriving nationwide after results are tabu- and tabulating data affect results.23 lated for Census 2000. But perhaps Analytically treating Hispanic eth- even more indicative of future nicity as a race greatly increases trends—in California if not in the estimates of the multiracial/ethnic nation—is that in Sacramento, population, whereas limiting the those under 18 years of age were analysis exclusively to racial data nearly twice as likely to be of yields lower multiracial estimates, mixed race than their adult coun- partly because many Hispanics terparts.21 Clearly, the multiracial identify their race as “white.” For population is increasing. example, in the analysis of birth What will the policy effects data (see Table 3), Hispanic eth- associated with governmental nicity is treated as if it were a recognition of this growing popu- racial category, yielding a multi- lation be? To a large extent, this racial/ethnic estimate of 19 per- will depend on how respondents cent of total births. Although choose to identify themselves ethnicity data are collected, Cen- and how the data are tabulated. sus 2000 Dress Rehearsal tabula- Tabulations of data not only for tions employ only race data to Census 2000 but also for records produce an estimate of 10 percent related to births, school registra- multiracial for children younger tions, employment, and mortgage than 18 years of age.24 Estimates applications are vital for monit- for the nation’s multiracial popu- oring and enforcement efforts lation versus the nation’s multira- associated with the Civil Rights cial/ethnic population show the Act, the Voting Rights Act, and same pattern. Multiracial Ameri-

8 Public Policy Institute of California

California Counts Check One or More . . .

cans constitute only about 2 However, the level of media Multiracial Americans percent of the total population25 attention this issue has generated constitute only about whereas multiracial/ethnic Ameri- since 1995 may influence the 2 percent of the total cans constitute an estimated 7 likelihood that respondents will percent of the population.26 Addi- identify themselves as multiracial.31 population whereas tional tabulation issues are dis- Regardless of the exact proportion multiracial/ethnic cussed at length in a recent report of the population that multiracial Americans constitute 27 prepared by the OMB. Americans constitute when Cen- an estimated 7 percent Tabulation methods are not sus 2000 data are tabulated, it the only potential source of varia- is evident that the nation’s popu- of the population. tion in enumeration of the mul- lation is outgrowing monoracial tiracial population. Qualitative categories. studies and anecdotal evidence The mounting complexity suggest that racial and ethnic of racial and ethnic identity has identities may be fluid in the lives led some critics of the OMB to of some mixed race or mixed eth- suggest that the cost of collecting nic people, changing from context multiple-race data would be pro- to context or changing over time.28 hibitive; other critics have gone This may be particularly true for even further, suggesting that there those whose identity is not con- be no collection of racial data.32 strained by their appearance— Yet, racial and ethnic discrimina- those who cannot easily be singled tion still exists, and statutory out as members of a particular requirements demand that the gov- racial or ethnic group. The poten- ernment continue to collect racial tial effect of such fluid identity and ethnic data. Despite Califor- on data integrity is unclear. For nia’s passage of Proposition 209 example, the U.S. Equal Employ- in 1996, which banned race- or ment Opportunity Commisson gender-based preferences in public requires that employers collect employment, public education, racial and ethnic data. These data and public contracting, approxi- are then compared with a special mately 30 race-conscious statutes Census benchmark file to make remain on the books in California, inferences about discrimination in and the state must still comply the workforce.29 Data consistency with the federal civil rights laws across these two sources is vital for encompassed in the civil rights making valid inferences. acts noted above.33 The question Our web site version As noted above, the results that we must confront in the com- of this report contains of a national Current Population ing years is how we will ensure two appendices with Survey conducted in 1995 indi- the civil rights of a population additional county-level cated that multiracial Americans that is outgrowing the monoracial currently constitute only about categories upon which civil rights data. www.ppic.org 2 percent of the total population.30 laws have been interpreted. ◆

9 Public Policy Institute of California

California Counts Check One or More . . .

Notes

1 The definitions of race and ethnicity 5 National Center for Education Statis- 10 Approximately 1 percent of the data used in this report are derived from cur- tics, U.S. Department of Education, on mothers’ race and ethnicity and gen- rent OMB standards. Multiracial refers Office of Educational Research and erally less than 4 percent of the data for to any individual who can claim two or Improvement, Racial and Ethnic Classi- fathers’ race and ethnicity are missing. more of the following OMB racial des- fications Used by Public Schools, NCES Records with missing race and ethnic ignations: white, black or African Amer- 96-092, Government Printing Office, data are excluded from the analysis. ican, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Washington D.C., March 1996. Pacific Islander, American Indian or 11 M. C. Waters, Ethnic Options: Alaska Native. Multiethnic refers to any 6 Bancroft-Whitney Company, Reports Choosing Identities in America, Univer- individual who can claim to be partly of Cases Determined in The Supreme sity of California Press, Berkeley, 1990. of Hispanic or Latino origin and partly Court of the State of California, May 25, not of Hispanic or Latino origin. The 1948 to November 1, 1948, Vol. 32 2d, 12 Betty Lee Sung, “Chinese American terms “multiracial/ethnic or mixed race/ San Francisco, 1949; Perez v. Sharp [32 Intermarriage,” Journal of Comparative ethnicity” refer to any individual who is C.2d 711;198 P.2d 17]. Family Studies, Vol. XXI, No. 3, either multiethnic or multiracial. Autumn 1990, pp. 337–352; Sharon M. 7 Diane Schmidley and Herman A. Lee and Marilyn Fernandez, “Trends in 2 The U.S. Census Bureau was granted Alvarado, Current Population Reports, Asian American Racial/Ethnic Intermar- an exemption to OMB’s standards for The Foreign-Born Population in the riage: A Comparison of 1980 and 1990 the 1980 and 1990 censuses. The United States: March 1997 (Update), Census Data,” Sociological Perspectives, exemption allowed the Census Bureau Census Bureau, P20-507, U.S. Depart- Vol. 41, No. 2, 1998, pp. 323–342; to include an “other” write-in response ment of Commerce, Economic and Douglas T. Gurak, “Family Formation to the race question. See National Statistics Administration, March 1998. and Marital Selectivity Among Colom- Research Council, Committee on bian and Dominican Immigrants in National Statistics, Spotlight on Hetero- 8 At this time, the OMB has not New York City,” International Migration geneity: The Federal Standards for Racial included a provision in the standards Review, Vol. XXI, No. 2, 1987, pp. and Ethnic Classification (Summary of a that would allow multiethnic respon- 275–298. Workshop), National Academy Press, dents to select both “Hispanic Origin” Washington D.C., 1996. and “Not of Hispanic Origin.” See 13 State of California, Department of Executive Office of the President Finance, Legal Immigration to California 3 Executive Office of the President, (1997), op. cit. in Federal Fiscal Year 1996, Sacramento, Office of Management and Budget, California, June 1999. “Revisions to the Standards for the 9 For detailed discussion of tabulation Classification of Federal Data on Race issues, see Executive Office of the Presi- 14 For a detailed discussion of tabulation and Ethnicity,” Federal Register, October dent, Office of Management and Bud- options, see Executive Office of the 30, 1997. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ get, “Draft Provisional Guidance on the President (1999), op. cit. WH/EOP/OMB/html/fedreg/ Implementation of the 1997 Standards Ombdir15.html. for the Collection of Federal Data on 15 Native-born, adult children of immi- Race and Ethnicity,” Federal Register, grants out-marry at a higher rate than 4 Naomi Zack, ed., American Mixed Washington D.C., February 17, 1999. their parents. For national origin popu- Race: The Culture of Microdiversity, To meet redistricting needs, the Census lation group projections that consider Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Bureau has decided to provide data with exogamy estimates by generation, see Lanham, Maryland, 1995; Maria P. P. 63 categories for race in combination Barry Edmonston, Sharon Lee, and Jef- Root, ed., Racially Mixed People in with Hispanic and non-Hispanic ethnic- frey Passel, “U.S. Population Projections America, Sage Publications, Newbury ity. There are 63 potential single- and for National Origin Groups: Taking into Park, California, 1992. multiple-race categories consisting of six Account Ethnicity and Exogamy,” Pro- monoracial categories and 57 categories ceedings of the Social Statistics Section, for biracial and multiracial respondents.

10 Public Policy Institute of California

California Counts Check One or More . . .

Annual Meeting of the American Statis- 23 A number of additional factors limit 30 U.S. Department of Labor (1995), tical Association, Toronto, Canada, the comparability of these two analyses. op. cit. August 13–18, 1994, pp. 100–105. These include (1) geographical cover- age differences, (2) racial/ethnic self- 31 For examples see Faye Fiore, “Multi- 16 Data based on 1990 census microdata identification versus researcher-derived ple Race Choices to Be Allowed on and 1994 birth data from the National racial/ethnic assignments, and (3) state 2000 Census,” Los Angeles Times, Part A, Center for Health Statistics. See James P. allocation of virtually all Hispanics to October 30, 1997; Michael A. Fletcher, Smith and Barry Edmonston, eds., the “white” racial category in the Birth “Interracial Marriages Eroding Barriers,” The New Americans: Economic Demo- Records versus racial self-identification Washington Post, December 1998; Jere- graphic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, into six different racial categories in the lyn Eddings, “Counting a ‘New’ Type of National Academy Press, Washington Census Dress Rehearsal data. American,” U.S. News Online, July 14, D.C., 1997. 1997, p. A1; Bizak (1999), op. cit. 24 See “Recommendations from the 17 Peter M. Blau, Inequality and Hetero- Interagency Committee for the Review 32 Executive Office of the President geneity: A Primitive Theory of Social of the Racial and Ethnic Standards to (1997), op. cit. Structure, Collier Macmillan Publishers, the Office of Management and Budget The Free Press, New York, 1977. Concerning Changes to the Standards 33 State of California, Office of Gover- for the Classification of Federal Data nor Pete Wilson, “Statutes Which 18 U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. on Race and Ethnicity,” Federal Register, Appear to Violate Article I Section 31 of http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/ July 9, 1997, for a summary of data the California Constitution,” Fact Sheet, resseg.html. collection methodology and its effect September 9, 1997. on responses. 19 U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Public Use 25 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Microdata Samples: Table 4, Race of Labor Statistics, A CPS Supplement for Child by Race of Householder and of Testing Methods of Collecting Racial and Spouse or Partner 1990; Table 2, Race Ethnic Information, May 1995, October of Couples: 1990; Table 1, Race of Wife 1995. by Race of Husband: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1991, and 1992. www.census.gov/ 26 Reynolds Farely, “Presentation to the population/www/socdemo/interrace.html. Race Advisory Board,” speech delivered Internet release date 6/10/98. at One America in the 21st Century, The President’s Initiative on Race, 20 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Census Washington, D.C., September 30, 1997. 2000 Dress Rehearsal, P.L. 94-171 (Redistricting) Summary File, 1999. 27 Executive Office of the President (1999), op. cit. 21 Tony Bizak, “Growing Diversity Evident in Census: Whites No Longer 28 Lynell George, “Inside Story; Capital’s Majority,” Sacramento Bee, Guessing Games,” Los Angeles Times May 2, 1999, p. A1. Magazine, February 21, 1999, p. 18.

22 Executive Ofﬁce of the President 29 Kenneth E. Payson, “Check One Box: (1997), op. cit. Reconsidering Directive No. 15 and the Classiﬁcation of Mixed-Race People,” California Law Review, Vol. 84, 1996, pp. 1233–1291.

11 Public Policy Institute of California

California Counts Check One or More . . .

Board of Directors

David A. Coulter, Chair Cheryl White Mason Raymond L. Watson Partner Partner Vice Chairman of the Board The Beacon Group O’Melveny & Myers The Irvine Company

William K. Coblentz Arjay Miller Harold M. Williams Partner Dean Emeritus President Emeritus Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP Graduate School of Business The J. Paul Getty Trust Stanford University and Walter B. Hewlett Of Counsel Director A. Alan Post Skadden, Arps, Slate, Center for Computer Assisted Former State Legislative Analyst Meagher & Flom LLP Research in the Humanities State of California

David W. Lyon Cynthia A. Telles President and CEO Department of Psychiatry Public Policy Institute of California UCLA School of Medicine

The Public Policy Institute of California is a private, nonproﬁt research organization established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute conducts independent, objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues affecting Californians. The Institute’s goal is to raise public awareness of these issues and give elected repre- sentatives and other public ofﬁcials in California a more informed basis for developing policies and programs.

PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 • [email protected] • www.ppic.org

PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT ORG. 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 U.S. POSTAGE San Francisco, California 94111 PAID SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA PERMIT #655