University of Massachusetts Boston ScholarWorks at UMass Boston Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy Center for Women in Politics & Public Policy Publications

7-2007 The otV ing Rights Act and the Election of Nonwhite Officials Pei-te Lien University of Utah

Dianne M. Pinderhughes University of Notre Dame

Carol Hardy-Fanta University of Massachusetts Boston

Christine M. Sierra University of New Mexico - Main Campus

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cwppp_pubs Part of the American Politics Commons, Economic Policy Commons, Health Policy Commons, Other Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons, Public Policy Commons, Race and Ethnicity Commons, Social Policy Commons, and the Women's Studies Commons

Recommended Citation Lien, Pei-te, Dianne M. Pinderhughes, Carol Hardy-Fanta, and Christine Marie Sierra. 2007. "The otV ing Rights Act and the Election of Nonwhite Officials." PS: Political Science & Politics 40(3): 489-94.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Women in Politics & Public Policy at ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. It has been accepted for inclusion in Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FEATURES

The Voting Rights Act and the Election of Nonwhite Officials

Pei-te Lien, University of Utah Dianne M. Pinderhughes, University of Notre Dame Carol Hardy-Fanta, University of Massachusetts, Boston Christine M. Sierra, University of New Mexico

he Voting Rights Act ~VRA! is one of of communities of color by examining but in deterring numerous changes in- T the most important—if not the most the implications of majority-minority tended to abridge minorities’ rights to important—public policies developed districts and other key provisions in the political participation and representation. over the last half century to increase ac- VRA for the election of nonwhite offi- In 1975, the Mexican American Legal cess to the U.S. political system for peo- cials in the beginning years of the Defense and Education Fund and other ple of color. The VRA also provides an twenty-first century. Latino organizations lobbied the Justice important context for understanding the Department, the Leadership Conference ascension of nonwhite groups into the A Brief History of the VRA on Civil Rights, and other organizations elected leadership of the nation ~Brown- in the civil rights coalition to support the ing, Marshall, and Tabb 1984; Davidson The VRA, as first passed in 1965, extension and expansion of the VRA. and Grofman 1994; Menifield 2001; Mc- applied specifically to African Ameri- They succeeded in bringing all Latinos Clain and Stewart 2002; Segura and cans because of the long history of ra- who were monolingual in Spanish under Bowler 2005; Bositis 2006!. This essay cial discrimination that was coverage, based on their status as lan- assesses the present-day significance of acknowledged by the U.S. Congress. guage minorities ~Pinderhughes 1995!. the VRA for the political representation Jurisdictions that met certain criteria, The minority language provisions—Sec- based on the proportion of the popula- tions 203 ~for written languages! and tion registered to vote and on evidence 4~f!4 ~for unwritten or oral language!— of barriers to registration and voting, precipitated coverage for American Indi- Pei-te Lien is associate professor of politi- were designated “covered jurisdictions”; ans, , Alaskan Natives, cal science and ethnic studies at the Univer- if they met the terms specified by Sec- and Latinos and were renewed in 1982 sity of Utah. Her research interests center tion 4 of the VRA, these jurisdictions for 10 years and in 1992 for 15 years. on the intersection of race, ethnicity, gender, were consequently subject to federal Pushed by Asian American and other and nativity in political behavior. She can intervention and oversight in their elec- civil rights organizations, the effort not be reached by email at peite.lien@gmail. com. toral process. Section 2 is a key perma- only extended Section 203 to 2007, but nent provision that prohibits the use of expanded bilingual voting assistance to Dianne M. Pinderhughes is professor any voting procedure or practice that jurisdictions with 10,000 or more single- and President’s Distinguished Professor of may result in a denial or abridgement of language minorities in the population Political Science and African Studies at the the right to vote on account of race or ~National Asian Pacific American Legal University of Notre Dame. Her areas of ex- color. Section 5 ~the preclearance provi- Consortium 1997!. In 2006, Sections 203 pertise include race, ethnicity, urban poli- sion!, a temporary provision that re- and 4~f!4 were also extended, the former tics, and minority voting rights. She is the quires covered jurisdictions to obtain for 25 years. incoming president of the APSA, 2007– prior approval from federal authorities Minority vote dilution, recognized as a 2008. for any proposed changes in their voting constraint on the abilities of racial minor- Carol Hardy-Fanta is director of the laws or procedures, has been renewed ities to elect representatives of their own, Center for Women in Politics & Public Pol- three times by Congress, in 1970, 1975, was addressed and acknowledged in the icy, John W. McCormack Institute of Public and in 1982 when the Act was extended 1982 amendment. The Supreme Court Affairs, University of Massachusetts-Boston. for 25 years until August 2007. In July set criteria for implementation of protec- She authored the widely-acclaimed Latina 2006, the Congress renewed this provi- tions against minority vote dilution in Politics, Latino Politics. Her email address is sion a fourth time and extended it for Thornburg v. Gingles, permitting the [email protected]. 25 more years, until 2031, in the “Fan- creation of so-called majority-minority nie Lou Hamer, , and Coretta districts in 1986. By 1990, the conflu- Christine M. Sierra is professor of polit- Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthori- ence of racially segregated housing pat- ical science at the University of New Mex- ico. Her primary research interest is on zation and Amendments Act of 2006” terns, the rapid rise of the nonwhite immigration, race, ethnicity, and Chicano/ ~H.R. 9!. A recent report from the Na- population due to international migra- Chicana politics. She is the lead PI of the tional Commission on the Voting Rights tion, the constitutional recognition of Gender and Multicultural Leadership project Act ~2006! maintains that Section 5 has majority-minority districts, and the new (www.gmcl.org). been effective not only in intercepting capacity of civil rights litigators to use

PSOnline www.apsanet.org DOI: 10.1017/S1049096507070746 489 computer software to design districts led District information for the 109th single-race statistics are available in this to the creation of a significant number of Congress comes from the U.S. Census Census product. new electoral districts in the U.S. House 2000.3 We used the “Race alone or in of Representatives and in state and local combination” and “Hispanic or Latinos VRA and Racial legislative bodies ~Parker 1990; Swain and Race” categories to compile the ra- Representation in the 1995; Lublin 1997; Grofman 1998; cial makeup of each district. The data- House of Representatives Canon 1999; Tate 2003!. While this con- base also includes racial identification cept began to be challenged in Shaw v. information on the nation’s state legisla- Despite the continuing increase of Reno, involving a 1992 North Carolina tors of color, updated with the 2006 di- nonwhite elected officials in recent de- redistricting case, the creation of rectory information provided by the cades, nonwhites are still severely under- majority-minority districts set the stage National Conference of State Legislators. represented in Congress. Although for a substantial expansion in the num- The VRA coverage information for each nonwhites were 31% of the national pop- bers of Black and Latino elected officials congressional district is taken from a ulation in 2000, they were less than 12% in the early 1990s. A preliminary look “VRA Impact Congressional Jurisdiction of the House members. As shown in the into the nation’s nonwhite elected offi- Database”; that for sub-national levels of top three rows of Table 1, there are a cials in recent decades suggests that the office is taken from the “VRA Impact total of 71 nonwhite House members in trend of growth has slowed but contin- Local Jurisdiction Database.”4 the 109th Congress; 20, or 28%, of them ued, especially at the local level and Given our interest in descriptive racial are women. African Americans lead the among women ~Hardy-Fanta et al. 2005, representation, we include in our analysis way with 41 members, followed by Lati- forthcoming; Bositis 2006; Smooth the racial breakdown for each state legis- nos with 25 members. There are also 2006!. lative district, using demographic infor- four Asian Americans and one American mation for all ages ~not just 18 and Indian member. The racial parity ratios 5 Data and Method over! from the Census 2000 Redistrict- in the House ~calculated as the percent- ing Dataset.6 For Asians, we combine age share of the legislative body divided To assess the continuing significance figures for Asians and Pacific Islanders. by the percentage share of the national of the VRA protections for the election Because this redistricting dataset contains population for each racial group! show of nonwhite officials, we begin with an only single-race but not mixed-race in- that Whites received the highest ratio of examination of the current status of de- formation ~during the time when we ac- descriptive racial representation and are scriptive racial representation by legisla- cessed the information!, estimations of the only group overrepresented, at 1.3 tive district at both congressional and district racial composition for all non- times their proportion in the population, state levels, followed by an analysis of white groups that have a higher mixed- followed by Blacks at 0.7, and then in its relationship to provisions in the VRA. race rate than that of non-Hispanic descending order by Latinos at 0.5, We then provide analysis of the numbers Whites tend to be lower than they should Asians at 0.2, and American Indians of Asian, Black, and Latino elected offi- be if the same method counting racial at 0.1. cials in selected local offices nationwide makeup of congressional districts were Looking at the racial composition of using demographic data collected at the applied.7 each congressional district in the 109th county level for those counties whose Information for local-level officials is Congress, Table 1 shows some evidence geographic boundaries coincide with taken from the GMCL database that in- of the effects of the creation of majority- those defined for VRA covered cludes nonwhites holding elective office minority districts: Black members’ dis- jurisdictions. as of January 2004. The racial and other tricts average 50.4% Black and Latino Key data used in this research are demographic characteristics of the county members’ districts average 60.4% Latino. from the national database the authors population are taken from the Census Among Black representatives, the percent created as part of the Gender and Multi- 2000 State and County web site.8 Only that their districts are Black ranges from Cultural Leadership ~GMCL! Project.1 The GMCL database includes informa- tion on Black, Latino, Asian American, and American Indian male and female officials holding elected office at fed- Table 1 eral, state, and local levels in 2003–04 Descriptive Racial Representation of House Representatives and0or in 2005–06.2 Those elected from (109th Congress) the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, or American Samoa are excluded. We con- Am. NH- structed the database using the most re- Asian Black Latino Ind. White All cent directories assembled by NALEO N 4 41 25 1 366 437 ~the National Association of Latino % in House .9 9.4 5.7 .2 88.3 100 Elected and Appointed Officials!, the Parity ratio .2 .7 .5 .1 1.3 1.0 Joint Center for Political and Economic District % Asian 14.9 4.3 6.0 2.4 4.4 4.5 Studies, the bi-annual political almanac District % Black 8.7 50.4 7.5 7.5 9.1 12.9 published by the UCLA Asian American District % Latino 13.0 12.7 60.4 4.8 9.6 12.8 Studies Center, and the National Confer- District % Am. Ind. 1.6 .9 1.8 8.4 1.5 1.5 ence of State Legislators ~for American District % Non-Hispanic White 62.8 32.9 26.2 77.6 75.9 68.9 Indians!. The directory information was verified for accuracy, re-coded for con- Source: GMCL database, 2006. sistency across groups, and expanded by Note: The parity ratio is calculated as the percentage share of House members by linking contextual ~e.g., demographic! the percentage share of the national population for each racial group according to data from the U.S. Census and other Census 2000 statistics (race alone or in combination). sources.

490 PS July 2007 25% ~MO-5, Emanuel Cleaver! to 66% congressional district covered by the Hispanic White women, who make up ~IL-1, Bobby Rush!. Further analysis VRA, particularly under Section 203. just 21.3% of White state legislators.10 In reveals that, whereas close to two-thirds Furthermore, a higher share of Latino terms of geographic distribution, Black ~63%! of Black congress members were than Black representatives was elected legislators also cover the largest number elected from majority-Black districts, from districts with Section 5 coverage. of states ~42!; followed by the 32-state- close to nine out of 10 ~88%! of them Although a very small number, an equal spread of Latinos, the 18-state-spread of were elected from majority-minority dis- proportion of Asian officials were Asians, and the 12-state-spread of Ameri- tricts. Among Latino representatives, the elected from covered districts. Signifi- can Indians. However, all of the non- percent that their districts are Latino cantly, up to 60% of all congressional white groups are identical in the ratio of ranges from 22% ~CO-3, John Salazar! districts nationwide and 56% of those lower to upper chamber members ~3:1!. to 78% ~TX-16, Silvestre Reyes!. Eight districts represented by White members Similar to the situation in Congress, in 10 Latino congress members were were also covered by VRA statutes. An minorities are also severely underrepre- elected from majority-Latino districts and important reason for the ubiquitous role sented in the nation’s state legislatures, all but one of the Latino congress mem- of Section 203 for Latino representatives as nonwhites represent only 12% of all bers were elected from majority-minority may be the relatively high percentage of state legislators. The racial parity ratios districts. the foreign-born in households in those in the nation’s state legislators as a Neither Asian nor American Indian districts that speak more than the En- whole show that Whites receive the same House members were elected from dis- glish language at home. Up to one-third level of descriptive overrepresentation as tricts in which the majority of the popu- of the district populations represented by in Congress, at 1.3, followed by a sharp lation is of their race.9 Among Asian Latinos was foreign-born and six out of drop in the parity ratio among Blacks representatives, the percent Asian in their 10 persons in those districts spoke a ~0.6!. However, American Indians re- district ranges from 2% ~LA-1, Bobby language other than English at home. ceive a higher level of descriptive racial Jindal! to 32% ~CA-15, Michael Honda!. representation at the state legislative Although none of the Asians was elected VRA and Racial level ~0.4! than Latinos or Asians, both from majority-Asian districts, half of Representation in of whom receive a poor 0.2 score. The them represent majority-minority dis- State Legislatures relative concentration of American Indi- tricts. In contrast, the average percent ans at the state legislative district level, ~non-Hispanic! White in White members’ In January 2006, there were 891 non- compared to the congressional district districts is 75.9%, which ranges from white members among the 7,382 in the level, may account for their better show- 18% ~HI-1, ! to 97% nation’s state legislatures ~Table 3!; 303 ing in terms of parity ratios. Table 3 also ~KY-5, Harold Rogers!. The statistics on or 34% of them were women. Blacks shows that the average percentage of White members may reflect the availabil- make up the largest group both in their American Indians in American Indian ity of White candidates, but it may also number ~530! and in the percent female legislators’ districts is 32%, as compared suggest the continuing strength of racial ~37%!. Latinos follow with 229 members to 8% at the congressional level. By the bloc voting among Whites. and 31% female. There were also 85 same token, the lower proportion of Lati- Table 2 examines the relationship be- Asian Americans, 31% female; and 47 nos at the state level appears to be influ- tween VRA statutes and House member American Indians, 21% female. In terms enced by their weaker concentration districts. It shows that the vast majority of gender, nonwhite state legislators are ratios. The average percentage of Latinos of nonwhite House members were distinctive from their White counterparts; in Latino state legislators’ districts is elected from districts covered by the Black, Latino, and Asian women’s per- 48%, as compared to 60% in congres- VRA. In fact, every single Latino mem- centages within their respective racial0 sional districts. ber in the House was elected from a ethnic group are higher than that of non- Nevertheless, the greater degree of racial concentration at the state legisla- tive district level does not explain the continuing lack of descriptive representa- Table 2 tion for Asians and Blacks. The average Percentage Distribution of VRA Covered Congressional percentage of Asians in Asian legislators’ Districts by Representatives’ Race (109th Congress) districts is 38%, substantially greater than the 15% in congressional districts. Asian Black Latino NH-White All The average percentage of Blacks in Only 05 25.0 24.4 0 12.0 12.6 Black legislators’ districts is 53%, mod- Only 203 50.0 31.7 52.0 29.2 30.9 estly larger than the 50% figure at the 05 and 4f4 0 0 4.0 1.6 1.6 congressional level. In contrast to their 05 and 203 0 2.4 0 1.6 1.6 situation in Congress, and to that of 05 and 203 and 4f4 0 17.1 44.0 11.5 13.7 other groups, we find that only Black Total 05 coverage 25 43.9 48.0 26.8 29.5 legislators are elected mostly from dis- Total 203 coverage 50 51.2 96 42.3 46.2 tricts in which the majority of the popu- Total VRA coverage 75 75.6 100 56.0 60.4 lation is of the same race. Among other District % Foreign-born 17.7 14.6 32.6 9.2 11.1 factors, the lower degree of VRA cover- District % Speaking Other Language 24.8 20.8 60.7 15.0 18.2 age at the state legislative level for Asians and Latinos may help explain the Source: GMCL database, 2006; “VRA Impact Congressional Jurisdiction Database” representation deficit for these two prepared by Daniel Levitas of ACLU; Census 2000 Fastfacts for the 109th Con- groups. gress: http://fastfacts.census.gov. Table 4 examines the relationship be- Note: The column for American Indian is deleted, for the single member was not tween VRA statutes and state legislative elected from a VRA covered jurisdiction. districts. It shows that the vast majority of Asian ~66%!, Black ~61%!, and Latino

PSOnline www.apsanet.org 491 percent Asian—signaling a potentially Table 3 critical role played by Latinos in decid- Descriptive Racial Representation of State Legislators, 2006 ing on local elections involving Asian candidates. This is not the situation for Asian Black Latino Am. Indian All both Black and Latino officials, where N 85 530 229 47 7,382 the largest amount of nonwhite support % in All State Legislators 1.1 7.2 3.1 .6 100 came from their own racial group, espe- Parity ratio .2 .6 .2 .4 1.0 cially for those holding county-level District % Asian 38.1 2.0 3.6 2.0 4.5 positions. Nevertheless, compared to District % Black 5.1 52.9 7.7 2.6 12.9 Blacks, Latinos need a much higher con- District % Latino 9.7 8.3 47.8 7.3 12.8 centration of their own ethnic population District % Am. Indian .4 .3 2.1 32.2 1.5 in the county to elect Latinos into local District % NH-White 34.0 34.9 37.5 52.8 68.9 offices. Also, although the average La- tino and Asian officials were elected Source: GMCL database, 2006; Census 2000 Redistricting Dataset as reported on from counties that are at least 50% non- the American Fact Finder web site: http://factfinder.census.gov. white, only a fraction of Black local offi- Note: The parity ratio is calculated as the percentage share of all state legislators cials were elected from majority Black by the percentage share of the national population for each racial group according counties. Further analysis shows that no to Census 2000 statistics (race alone). more than 30% of Black elected officials at the county level, 20% at the municipal level, and 18% at the school board level were elected from majority Black coun- similar to that which ties. Also, no more than 40% of all local Table 4 explains the disparate Black elected officials and only 30% of Percentage Distribution of VRA Covered reliance of nonwhites Black municipal officials were elected State Legislative Districts by Legislators’ on various VRA pro- from counties that are majority nonwhite. Race, 2006 visions in congressio- These patterns may reflect the ability of nal districts may also Blacks to win local offices in places Asian Black Latino Am. Ind. be at work to explain where Blacks are not the predominant Only 05 2.4 38.1 1.8 2.1 the observed state- population. Nonetheless, the crudeness Only 203 61.2 16.0 54.0 19.1 level patterns. of the population measure at the county 05 and 4f4 1.2 .2 .4 2.1 level may mask other electoral patterns 05 and 203 0 0 1.8 6.4 VRA and Racial that may be better explained with local 05 and 203 and 4f4 1.2 6.2 27.2 10.6 Representation district-level data. Total 05 coverage 4.7 44.5 30.6 21.3 in Local Elective Last but not least, we look at the rela- Total 203 coverage 62.4 22.3 79.0 48.9 Offices tionship between VRA coverage and the Total VRA coverage 65.9 60.6 81.7 46.8 election of nonwhite officials at the local Local elective posi- level. Table 6 shows that, except for Source: See Table 3; “VRA Impact Local Jurisdiction tions constitute the Asians at the county level, the prepon- Database” prepared by Daniel Levitas of ACLU. lion’s share of the derance of the nation’s nonwhite officials nation’s nonwhite in 2004 were elected from counties ~or elected officials. Ac- the equivalent jurisdictions! that were ~82%! state legislators were elected from cording to the GMCL 2004 database, protected by the VRA statutes. As is the districts covered by the VRA. Close to county, municipal ~mayors and city0town case for state legislative district levels, half of American Indian state legislators councilors, selectmen, or aldermen!, and this table reveals the critical importance also came from such districts. The over- school board officials make up 67% of of Section 203 for the election of Asian all percentages of VRA coverage for Asian, 79% of Black, and 82% of Latino and Latino local officials and the much each district represented by nonwhites elected officials. more important role of Section 5 than are lower in state legislatures than in To assess the relationship between Section 203 for the election of Black Congress, except for American Indians. VRA coverage and racial representation local officials. We also observe that local For Asians the drop is 9%, for Blacks, at the local level, we link county-level officials of Asian descent tend to be 15%, and for Latinos, 18%. Still, over demographics from the 2000 Census to elected from counties that had a higher eight in 10 Latino legislators were each of the Asian, African, and Latino share of the foreign-born population than elected from state districts covered by elected officials in the database by the those that elected Latinos and0or Blacks. the VRA, nearly all under Section 203. county in which his or her office is lo- 11 Also, a much higher share of Asian, La- cated. Table 5 breaks down the locally Conclusion tino, and American Indian state legisla- elected nonwhite officials by level of tors than Blacks was elected from office and by their descriptive racial rep- This research documents a substantial districts with Section 203 coverage. resentation. Compared to Blacks and Lat- relationship between the VRA and the Among Blacks, the percentage of Sec- inos, Asian American local officials have election of nonwhite officials at the na- tion 5 coverage is twice as large as that the smallest share of their own racial tional, state, and local levels. However, of Section 203 and there is little overlap group in the counties from which they we also observe significant racial differ- in terms of covered jurisdictions by the were elected—on average, no higher ences in the patterns of the relationship. two provisions. No data are available on than 24%. In fact, at both municipal and We find greater VRA coverage at the the proportion of the foreign-born and on school board levels, the average percent congressional than at the state legislative non-English usage at the state district Latino in the counties with Asian elected level. Eighty percent of Latino and 66% level. However, we suspect a mechanism officials is much higher than the average of Black members of the U.S. House

492 PS July 2007 legislators, Blacks were elected from districts with Sec- Table 5 were the only tion 203 coverage, and that Latinos were Descriptive Representation of Local Elected group to be largely elected from congressional districts with Officials elected from their the highest share of Section 5 coverage. own respective Finally, we find that Asian local elected Asian Black Latino majority-ethnic officials often represent jurisdictions that County Officials N = 29 N = 951 N = 438 district. Regardless have a higher share of Latinos than County % Asian 24.3 1.0 1.1 of the level of of- Asians in the local population. County % Black 1.8 39.5 3.0 fice, we find that Despite the limited nature of our data- County % Latino 11.5 3.6 59.4 the vast majority set for understanding the dynamics be- County % Am. Indian .9 .5 2.6 of nonwhite tween VRA protections and the election County % Nonwhite 58.3 45.2 66.4 elected officials of different groups of nonwhites into were elected from various levels of office, very interesting Municipal Officials N = 111 N = 4,091 N = 1,052 jurisdictions cov- patterns emerge from the analysis that County % Asian 14.5 1.4 3.1 ered by the VRA, raise intriguing questions for further re- County % Black 7.8 31.9 5.8 especially Sec- search. More importantly, we anticipate County % Latino 21.9 5.3 47.8 tion 203. However, that our next stage of research, the 2006 County % Am. Indian .8 .7 2.0 we also find very GMCL telephone survey of nonwhite County % Nonwhite 48.6 40.1 59.4 interesting patterns elected officials, will offer a more pow- School Board Members N = 116 N = 1,868 N = 1,683 that challenge erful tool to examine the substantive na- County % Asian 13.2 2.1 3.4 conventional ture of representation. When analyzed in County % Black 7.4 31.5 4.5 wisdom—such as combination with the contextual database County % Latino 28.6 7.4 52.9 that, in addition to that we have reported, this new dataset County % Am. Indian 1.1 .7 1.7 the close relation- should help us uncover the barriers and County % Nonwhite 52.9 42.3 63.2 ship between opportunities for more equitable repre- Source: GMCL database, 2004. majority-minority sentation between men and women districts and the across racial groups. Note: The county % race is for individuals identified as of a election of Latinos single racial origin within each county as reported in Census and Blacks into 2000 State and County Quick Facts: Congress, there is http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/. a high correlation Notes between the cre- ation of majority- 1. The authors would like to acknowledge White districts and the generous support for this project provided by the Ford Foundation. For a more complete de- the election of scription of the entire project, which includes a Table 6 Whites into the national survey of elected officials of color by Percentage Distribution of Nonwhite Elected House of Repre- race0ethnicity and gender, see Hardy-Fanta et al. Local Officials from VRA Covered sentatives. Voting ~2005, forthcoming!. 2. The database includes elected officials Jurisdictions, 2004 Rights litigators, particularly the late who fall into the following office levels: con- gressional, statewide, state legislative, county, Asian Black Latino Frank Parker of the municipal, and school board. It does not include Lawyers’ Commit- County Officials N = 29 N = 951 N = 438 judicial or law enforcement positions, party offi- tee for Civil Rights cials, or miscellaneous officials elected to boards Total 05 coverage 0 73.1 59.1 Under Law, in- and commissions such as water, utility, and Total 203 coverage 41.4 5.8 88.8 vented the concept transportation. Data for American Indian elected Total VRA coverage 41.4 77.1 90.9 of majority- officials are available only at the state legislative County % Foreign-born 14.2 3.5 13.3 and congressional levels. minority districts 3. This data source ~“Profiles of General Municipal Officials N = 111 N = 4,091 N = 1,052 because of the Demographic Characteristics: U.S., Regions, Di- Total 05 coverage 10.8 54.8 47.4 post-1965 efforts vision, Metropolitan Areas, American Indian Total 203 coverage 74.8 10.1 87.4 by the Mississippi Areas0Alaska Native Areas0Hawaiian Home Total VRA coverage 79.3 62.8 90.6 legislature to limit Lands, States, Congressional Districts”! is pre- County % Foreign-born 23.6 5.0 17.7 Black congressio- ferred over other Census products, for it provides district racial information that includes persons School Board Members N = 116 N = 1,868 N = 1,683 nal representation who may report more than one race and is con- Total 05 coverage 6.9 50.1 58.1 even in some of sidered a more complete count. Total 203 coverage 84.5 20.0 93.6 the heaviest areas 4. We would like to thank Daniel Levitas Total VRA coverage 84.5 65.0 95.3 of African Ameri- of the ACLU Voting Rights Project in Atlanta, County % Foreign-born 27.4 7.3 18.6 can residence in Georgia for his generosity in providing us access the country ~Parker to these databases. Source: GMCL database, 2004; “VRA Impact Local Jurisdic- 5. This decision was prompted by the con- 1990!. Also, al- tion Database” prepared by Daniel Levitas of ACLU. cern that reappointment is based on the total though Blacks population counts, not just the voting-age were much more population. likely to be elected 6. Information used is in the Quick from jurisdictions Tables of the American Fact Finder web site: were elected from majority-Latino dis- under the coverage of Section 5 rather http:00factfinder.census.gov. Unfortunately, not all states participate in Phase 2 of the Census tricts and majority-Black districts, re- than Section 203, this was true only at redistricting data program, and several states spectively; such is not the case with the the state and local levels. We found that have districts that are numbered in ways differ- two other nonwhite groups. Among state a greater share of Black House members ent from the scheme used by the Census. We

PSOnline www.apsanet.org 493 were able to compensate for some of the miss- 7. The exception is for the Latino figures, 10. For a more thorough discussion of the ing data by contacting state data centers but which are not affected by the different means of interaction between race and gender in descrip- not all the attempts were successful and not racial counting because the Census treats this tive representation, see Hardy-Fanta et al. all the data found were comparable. For exam- population as an ethnic group whose members ~2005!. ple, we were able to find information for Cali- may have one or more racial origin~s!. 11. The GMCL database does not contain fornia, Texas, and , but each of these 8. This information is available from the American Indian elected officials below the state states used a different system of reporting dis- Quick Facts web site: http:00quickfacts.census. level. See Hardy-Fanta et al. ~2005! for a fuller trict racial information. We used the best esti- gov0qfd0. report of the findings. mates to make the information comparable and 9. This is a change from the past when were forced to use the state average in the case Congresswoman Patsy Mink represented of Hawaii. ~1965–1977 and 1990–2002!.

References Bositis, David, ed. 2006. Voting Rights and Mi- ing of the American Political Science Associ- ington, D.C.: Lawyers Committee for Civil nority Representation: Redistricting, 1992– ation, Washington, D.C. Rights Under Law. 2002. Lanham, MD: University Press of Hardy-Fanta, Carol, Pei-te Lien, Dianne Pinder- Parker, Frank R. 1990. Black Votes Count: Po- America and Joint Center for Political and hughes, and Christine Marie Sierra. Forth- litical Empowerment in Mississippi after Economic Studies. coming. “Gender, Race and Descriptive 1965. Chapel Hill: University of North Caro- Browning, Rufus, Dale Marshall, and David Representation in the : Findings lina Press. Tabb. 1984. Protest Is Not Enough: The from the Gender and Multicultural Leader- Pinderhughes, Dianne. 1995. “Black Interest Struggle of Blacks and Hispanics for ship Project.” Journal of Women, Politics & Groups and the 1982 Extension of the Voting Equality in Urban Politics. Berkeley: Uni- Policy 28 ~304!. Rights Act.” In Blacks and the American versity of California Press. Lublin, David. 1997. The Paradox of Represen- Political System, eds. Huey L. Perry and Canon, David. 1999. Race, Redistricting and tation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Wayne Parent. Gainesville: University Press Representation: The Unintended Conse- Issues in Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton of Florida, 35–52. quences of Black Majority Districts. Chi- University Press. Segura, Gary, and Shaun Bowler, eds. 2005. Di- cago: Press. McClain, Paula D., and Joseph Stewart, Jr. 2002. versity in Democracy: Minority Representa- Davidson, Chandler, and Bernard Grofman, eds. “Can We All Get Along?” Racial and Eth- tion in the United States. Charlottesville: 1994. Quiet Revolution in the South: The nic Minorities in American Politics, 3rd ed. University of Virginia Press. Impact of the Voting Rights Act, 1965– Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 ~1993!. 1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Menifield, Charles E., ed. 2001. Representation Smooth, Wendy. 2006. “Intersectionality in Elec- Press. of Minority Groups in the U.S.: Implica- toral Politics: A Mess Worth Making.” Poli- Grofman, Bernard, ed. 1998. Race and Redis- tions for the Twenty-First Century. Lanham, tics & Gender 2 ~September!: 400–14. tricting in the 1990s. New York: Agathon MD: Austin & Winfield Publishers. Swain, Carol M. 1995. Black Faces, Black In- Press. National Asian Pacific American Legal Consor- terests: The Representation of African Hardy-Fanta, Carol, Christine Sierra, Pei-te Lien, tium. 1997. Report on Status of Bilingual Americans in Congress. Cambridge, MA: Dianne Pinderhughes, and Wartyna Davis. Assistance to Asian Pacific American Voters Harvard University Press. 2005. “Race, Gender, and Descriptive Repre- Under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. Tate, Katherine. 2003. Black Faces in the Mir- sentation: An Exploratory View of Multicul- Washington, D.C. ror: African Americans and Their Represen- tural Elected Leadership in the United National Commission on the Voting Rights Act. tation in Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton States.” Presented at the 2005 Annual Meet- 2006. “Protecting Minority Voters: The Vot- University Press. ing Rights Act At Work, 1982–2005.” Wash- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 ~1986!.

494 PS July 2007