Georgia’s Latino Electorate in 2008 A Significant Segment of the Electorate with High Voter Participation and Engagement
June 30, 2009
Authored by:
Jerry Gonzalez, M.P.A Executive Director Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Voter Turn-Out Database Analysis Conducted by:
Trey Hood, Ph.D. Department of Political Science, University of Georgia (Athens, GA)
&
Latino Surname Match Conducted by:
Gladys Negrete, Data Analyst NALEO Educational Fund (Los Angeles, CA)
Editing Contributions by:
Jose Blanco, P.H.R. Program Coordinator The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Additional contributions by:
• Cate Faulkner, International Studies at Georgia Southern University (2012) • Nubia Guido, History Major at Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, NC (2010) • Jonathan Duarte, Industrial Engineer from Georgia Institute of Technology (2009)
Funding for the report was provided by GALEO and the Sociological Initiatives Foundation.
Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Executive Summary
As of January 2009 and based upon the analysis in this report, Latino voters have now reached 145,991, representing 3% of the electorate in Georgia. Georgia’s Latino electorate had a higher voter turn out rate of 53.8% as compared to the national Latino voter turn out rate of 49.9%, 3.9 percentage points higher that the national rate.
Immigration is an important issue which has increased voter participation and engagement amongst the Latino voters. Harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric has been a losing proposition for many “hardliners” in the 2008 Congressional races. Georgia Legislators should pay close attention to the Latino voter participation rates. Latino voters have engaged and will continue to exercise their right to vote, while considering the anti-immigrant climate being created by some elected officials. As the debate on immigration moves forward, many elected officials are openly discussing the political impact the immigration issue could have in future elections, especially in attracting Latino voters.
On Thursday, June 25, 2009, President Obama began with a bipartisan national dialog on moving forward with comprehensive immigration reform.
“We have members of Congress from both chambers, from parties, who have participated in the meeting and shared a range of ideas. I think the consensus is that despite our inability to get this passed over the last several years, the American people still want to see a solution in which we are tightening up our borders, or cracking down on employers who are using illegal workers in order to drive down wages -- and oftentimes mistreat those workers. And we need a effective way to recognize and legalize the status of undocumented workers who are here.”---President Obama1
1 Brandon, Katherine. “Working Together for Immigration Reform.” The White House: The Blog. June 25, 2009. Available online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Working-Together-for-Immigration-Reform/
Page 1 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Demonstrating Georgia’s Latino electorate and voter turn out, here are some highlights of the report: • 54% of the Latino electorate is under the age of 40. • 59% of the Latino electorate has registered post 2004 indicating recent electoral activity. • Statewide, 53.8% of Latino registered voters voted in the 2008 General Election, out performing the national Latino voter turn out rate of 49.9%. • Latino voter turn out for the 2008 General Election surpassed national Latino voter turn out rates in the majority of jurisdictions. o 80% of the 20 metropolitan Atlanta counties surpassed the national Latino voter turn out rate of 49.9%. o All of the counties with the highest Latino density in the state (Gwinnett, Cobb, Fulton and Dekalb) surpassed the Latino voter turn out rate by more than 6 percentage points of the national Latino voter turn out rate of 49.9%. o Nine out of thirteen Congressional Districts out-performed the national rate of Latino voter turn out. o 64.4% (116 out of 180) of the Georgia House Districts demonstrated to be at or above the national Latino voter turn out rate. o 64.3% (36 out of 56) of the Georgia Senate Districts demonstrated Latino voter turn out higher than the national Latino voter turn out rate. • Between January 2003 and June 2009, both Cobb and Gwinnett Counties demonstrated amazing growth in the “Non-white” (Black, Latino, Asian, Indian and Other) category. In fact, Cobb County grew the “Non-white” category by 68,904 registered voters while the “White” category only grew by 37,023. Similarly in Gwinnett County, the “Non-white” category grew by 111,312 registered voters while the White category grew only by 37, 859 voters.
Page 2 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
The report also analyzes density and Latino voter turn out in Congressional and State Legislative Districts:
• U.S. Representative John Linder (R-Duluth) has the highest density of Latino registered voters with 23,185, attributing for 4.6% of his electorate. In the 2008 General Election, Latino voter turn out rate in his district was 57.7%, above the national Latino voter turn out rate of 49.9% by 7.8 percentage points. • U.S. Representative Tom Price (R-Roswell) had the highest Latino voter turn out in the state for the 2008 General Election with 61.6%, 11.7 percentage points higher than the national Latino voter turn out rate of 49.9%. U.S. Representative Price (R-Roswell) accounts for 15,186 Latino registered voters, or 3% of his electorate. • Georgia State Senator Renee Unterman (R-SD45) has 7,737 Latino registered voters in her district, accounting for 5.4% of her electorate. Latino voters in Senator Unterman’s district demonstrated a 60.9% voter turn out during the 2008 General Election. • Georgia State Senator Curt Thompson (D-SD5) has 6,252 Latino registered voters in his district, accounting for 10.7% of his electorate. • Georgia Senator Jack Murphy (R-SD27), lead author of SB67-legislation which would have made Georgia the only state in the nation with an English-only provision for driver’s license exams, accounts for 4,607 Latino registered voters, or 3% of his electorate. Latino voter turn out rate in the 2008 General Election for Senator Murphy’s District was 63.3%, 13.4 percentage points higher than the national average. • Georgia State Senator and Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R-SD21) demonstrated the second highest Senate District’s Latino voter turn out rate in the 2008 General Election with 64.7%, significantly higher than the national Latino voter turn out rate by 14.8 percentage points. There are 3,942 Latino registered voters in this district, or 3.4% of his electorate.
Page 3 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
• Georgia State Representative Roger Williams (R-Dalton) accounts for 2,976 Latino registered voters, which is 14% of his electorate.
The numbers and the analysis presented in this report indicate a significant Latino electorate that is engaging quickly. The Latino electorate cares about the issue of immigration and has demonstrated a capacity to turn out to vote. As the 2010 election unfolds, candidates and elected officials should consider the Latino electorate seriously because Latino voters in Georgia are engaged and participate in elections.
Page 4 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Introduction
The introduction should present a better understanding of the political context for the results of the report. The Latino electorate in Georgia has continued to grow and is now a force to be reckoned with for the upcoming 2010 elections. As of January 1, 2009, the state of Georgia had 145,9912 Latino registered voters. Latino voter turn out in the 2008 General Election was 53.8%, higher than the national Latino voter turn out rate of 49.9%. The Latino electorate continues to grow and expand at a quick rate of growth in Georgia.
Immigration Is Important
As the campaigns for the 2010 elections gear up, candidates running statewide campaigns must begin to target the Latino electorate as a viable component of their campaign strategies. Given the heightened sensitivity of the issue of immigration and the recent electoral failures of strident anti-immigrant Congressional candidates3, it would be wise for politicians to begin to re-tool some of their campaign tactics to be inclusive of the Latino electorate. Unfortunately, the rhetoric and anti-immigrant sentiment from Georgia’s General Assembly and Legislative leaders indicates that this lesson has not yet been learned given the recent activity and passage of several anti-immigrant initiatives.4 Furthermore, as the immigration debate begins once again in the U.S.
2 The data presented here indicates the self-identified parameter and the Latino surname match conducted with data from the Secretary of State’s voter data file from January 1, 2009. 3 Immigration Policy Center. “The New Electoral Landscape and What It Means for Immigration Reform: Latinos, Asians, and new Americans Redefine 21st Century American Politics.” December 2008. Available online: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/images/File/specialreport/New_Electoral_Landscape_12_4_08.pdf 4 Several anti-immigrant initiatives were passed in 2009: SB86, Proof of citizenship for voter registration; SB20, Anti-Sanctuary City bill; HB2, termed the SB529 Part II where it tightens requirements for local governments on complying with the Georgia Security and
Page 5 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Congress, the Latino electorate in Georgia will be listening to both the Congressional delegation from Georgia and to the gubernatorial candidates as they make their case to Georgia voters.
Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric is a Losing Proposition
According to the Immigration Policy Center’s recent analysis of 22 battleground campaigns for the U.S House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, pro-immigration reform candidates beat the “hardliners” in 20 of the races. Immigration as a wedge issue is a losing proposition for candidates.5 Even Karl Rove, former Senior Adviser to President George W. Bush recently stated, “An anti-Hispanic attitude is suicidal. As the party of Lincoln, Republicans have a moral obligation to make our case to Hispanics, blacks and Asian-Americans who share our values. Whether we see gains in 2010 depends on it.”6 Former U.S. Representative Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) said, “It’s absolutely urgent. The demographics are there in black and white. If we do not figure out a way to open our party up to more Hispanic voters, nothing else we do will matter. Mathematically, we can’t get there from here.”7 Nationally, the trends appear clear for both political parties and outreach efforts to the growing Latino electorate are necessary nationally and in Georgia.
Georgia Political Leaders Don’t Get It
However, some political leaders in Georgia have continued their efforts to utilize anti- immigrant sentiment to further their campaigns. For example, during the week of President Obama’s historic nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a Puerto Rican woman and first Hispanic nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Representative
Immigration Compliance Act of 2006. SB67, the English-only for driver’s license exams legislation narrowly was defeated during the last day of the session. 5 Immigration Policy Center, Ibid. 6 Rove, Karl. “Memo to the GOP: A Way Out of the Wilderness.” Newsweek. November 24, 2008. Available online: http://www.newsweek.com/id/169173/page/1 7 Smith, Ben. “GOP sounds alarm on Latino voter gap.” Politico.com, May 18, 2009. Available online: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22586.html
Page 6 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Nathan Deal (R-Gainesville) made the news rounds in order to promote his controversial Congressional legislation to end birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil whose parents are undocumented.8 In addition, Secretary of State Karen Handel’s efforts to implement a citizenship verification process without obtaining pre- clearance from the U.S. Department of Justice, as required by the Voting Rights Act, was struck down by the USDOJ. Despite overwhelming evidence that the process had a negative impact on minority populations in our state, Secretary of State Karen Handel quickly begun to use the issue as a campaign tactic for her bid to become the Republican Party’s nominee for Governor in 2010 and irresponsibly issued the press release with the following headline: “Obama Justice Department to Allow Illegal Aliens to Vote in Georgia.”9
Latinos Care About Immigration and Vote Accordingly
Immigration remains an issue that is highly significant to the Latino electorate. Polling conducted by America’s Voice, a communications campaign working to win common-sense immigration reform, around the 2008 General Election found that 89% of Latino immigrant voters considered immigration reform as “important” to them and their families.10
Taken into consideration the polling above and the results of the Republican Party losing ground with Latinos in key states from 2004 to 2008, the harsh anti-immigrant tone by many within the Republican Party was noted and Latinos reacted in the elections in 2008. In fact, Obama defeated McCain in Florida among
8 Associated Press. “Georgia lawmaker wants to end ‘birthright citizenship’.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 25, 2009. Available online: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2009/05/25/citizenship_bill.html 9 Handel, Karen. “Obama Justice Department to Allow Illegal Aliens to Vote in Georgia: Karen Handel Fights to Stop It.” Press Release/Campaign Email of the Karen Handel for Governor, Inc. June 3, 2009. Available online: http://www.galeo.org/story.php?story_id=0000006189 10 Sharry, Frank. “What the 2008 Elections Mean for Future Immigration Reform.” Letter to the Members of the 111th Congress. January 28, 2009. Available online: http://amvoice.3cdn.net/e8ba7ee2f71fca6c6a_xam6i6bvh.pdf
Page 7 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Latino voters 57% to 42%, where the Latino electorate was 14%. By contrast, Bush won 56% of the Latino vote in 2004.11 In addition, the Latino electorate in Virginia played a significant role between victory and defeat for the Presidential candidates. The Latino electorate was 5% in Virginia and Obama won Latino voters by large margins, 65% to 34%, while Obama won the state of Virginia by 53% to 47%, a margin of about 232,000 votes. An analysis of the voters indicated that Obama received approximately 35,000 more votes of Latino New Americans (recently naturalized citizens or U.S. born children of immigrants) than McCain, which accounted for 3% of the electorate.12
Tool for All Candidates
This report should be a tool for candidates to ensure they seriously consider the growing Latino electorate in Georgia as part of their strategy to get elected or re- elected. Dismissing the changing demographics of the electorate in Georgia will be to the peril of candidates who blindly go about repeating failed strategies to scapegoat immigrants. To begin with, this report establishes a baseline of the number of Latino voters13 in Georgia for Congressional and State Legislative districts (Section 1: Latino Electorate in Georgia). In addition, this report is a first of its kind to illustrate the Latino voter participations rates in the Georgia elections (Section 2: Latino Voter Turn Out Analysis). And finally, this report analyzes the growth rates in Georgia over the last several years, building upon previous reports we have issued with only self-identified Latino voters (Section 3: County Highlights and Trends).
11 Immigration Policy Center. “The New Electoral Landscape and What It Means for Immigration Reform: Latinos, Asians, and new Americans Redefine 21st Century American Politics.” December 2008. Available online: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/images/File/specialreport/New_Electoral_Landscape_12_4_08.pdf 12 Immigration Policy Center. “The New Electoral Landscape and What It Means for Immigration Reform: Latinos, Asians, and new Americans Redefine 21st Century American Politics.” December 2008. Available online: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/images/File/specialreport/New_Electoral_Landscape_12_4_08.pdf 13 The analysis is conducted based on the surname match and the self-identified category in the Secretary of States voter data file.
Page 8 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
NALEO Identification of Likely Latino Voters
Latino voters were identified through the application of a “surname-match” process. Using a surname dictionary of 12,215 known Latino surnames, voter file records were cross-referenced for matches against our dictionary. Voters identified by surname- match are then tagged as Latino.
The dictionary of Latino surnames used by the NALEO Educational Fund contains a combination of surnames that have been known to capture up to 95% of the Latino population within a given list. In circumstances where auxiliary data on race and ethnicity is available (as is the case with Georgia’s statewide voter file), individuals who may not posses a common Latino surname but self-identified as “Hispanic/Latino” on their registration form are also included in the final likely Latino voter count. The statewide voter database was purchased from the Secretary of State for the surname- match analysis and turn out analysis to be conducted.14
Limitations of Self-Identification for the Purpose of Tagging Latinos
Self-identification is treated as secondary-match criteria in this methodology. Although allowing people to self identify their racial or ethnic group is a conventional method used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the collection of such information through voter registration forms is not a standardized practice nationwide. For purposes of comparability, the primary match criteria applied in our Latino voter analyzes is the person’s surname. Additionally, in Georgia several limitations exist concerning the collection of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity information in voter registration forms, and its use for analysis purposes:
1. The Hispanic/Latino category in the question on race was not added to voter registration forms until 2001. Prior to 2001, respondents who considered themselves to be of Hispanic/Latino origin were only able to identify as White,
14 The state database was purchase in January 2009 from the Georgia Secretary of State.
Page 9 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Black, or Other. Further, it is very likely that voter registration forms without the Hispanic/Latino surname were not re-called or discontinued from use immediately after 2001. This means that not all persons registering to vote (registrants) were provided the opportunity to identify as Hispanic/Latino.
2. Many registrants may not provide a response in the Race and Ethnicity box of the voter registration form. Such registrants are categorized as “Unknown” in the Race/Ethnicity field of the state’s voter file. There are numerous reasons, (that we are unable to enumerate in detail here), for why registrants would choose to not provide a response. For example, they might not feel providing information on race and ethnicity in the registration form is relevant, fear of stating a racial or ethnic identification that might not be accepted by the broader community, or simply forgetting to provide a response. Non-response to the Race and Ethnicity box, then, introduces a significant degree of uncertainty to the meaningful analysis of Latino voters. Applying the surname-match criteria permits us to reduce this effect. We already know that persons with a Latino surname are highly likely to be of Hispanic/Latino origin.
3. Because Latinos may be of any race, registrants may check off more than one racial category on their registration form. For example, a registrant may state that he/she is “White” and “Hispanic/Latino” (or any other Race-Hispanic/Latino combination). Additionally, Latino respondents who identify strongly with their national origin group may provide that identity as a response in the “Other” category. According to the Elections Division of the Georgia Secretary of State Office, registrants that provide multiple racial/ethnic responses, or who provide a Latino national origin write-in response, are classified as “Other.”
For the reasons outlined above, we feel that applying our surname-match methodology as the primary criteria for tagging likely Latino voters is most effective. Secondary criteria (self-identification) allow us, then, to increase our efficiency in tagging registered voters as Latino. Self-identification expands our count by including registrants who may
Page 10 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
not posses one of the 12,215 Latino surnames in the dictionary, but identified as Hispanic/Latino.
Latinos may be of any race and therefore many might associate racially as “White” or “Black,” while still acknowledging that they are Mexican or Puerto Rican or any other Latino national origin identity.
Latinos may choose to identify with a racial category that they deem may be more acceptable to the broader community they live in. For example, a Latino living in a heavily white community with a small and dispersed Latino population may chose to identify as “White.”
Finally, there are many human errors which are introduced during the data entry phase of the voter file management process. Data entry personnel may have incorrectly entered a number of “race-code” entries into the “race field” of some registered voters. We have no definite idea what the significance of this error might be, but we do feel it is an issue to consider in this process.
Further, research suggests that Latinos in Georgia are very likely to identify racially as “White.” 2000 Census figures demonstrate that in Georgia, 50% of adult citizens who said they were Hispanic/Latino also identified as racially “White.” This means that, a majority of Latinos eligible to register and vote consider themselves “White.” This fact (in addition to the aforementioned considerations on the issue of self-identification) is important to consider in a decision as to what figures are most appropriate for an analysis of Latino voters.
By the strict application of our surname-match methodology, we have identified individuals as persons with surnames that indicate they are very likely to be of Latino origin. Because there are many issues still to be resolved with racial/ethnic self- identification on Georgia’s voter registration form, we believe that additional research is needed to address the issues we have listed above before we could take self- identification as a full count for the number of Latinos registered to vote in the state.
Page 11 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
The NALEO Latino surname-match analysis is presented in both “Section 1: Latino Electorate in Georgia” and “Section 2: Latino Voter Turn Out Analysis”.
Page 12 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Section 1: Latino Electorate in Georgia
Table 1: Georgia Summary Electorate Registered Voters 5,790,570 Latino Registered Voters 145,991 % Latino of Total Registered 3%
According to the Georgia’s statewide voter file as of January 2009, there are only 83,403 self-identified Hispanic/Latino voters in the state. However, with the Latino surname-match analysis conducted by NALEO Educational Fund, the number of Latino voters is estimated at 145,991, 3% of Georgia’s electorate. With the Latino electorate numbers presented, the case could be made that the Latino vote could begin to make an impact in competitive statewide races.
For example, looking at the statewide Primary Elections on July 18, 2006, the votes cast for the winners of many races were under 50,000 votes. For example, in the competitive Democratic Primary election for Governor between the top two candidates had a difference of 37,210 votes. Further, in the competitive Republican Primary election for Lieutenant Governor, the difference between the two candidates was 49,178 votes. On the Democratic side for the Lieutenant Governor’s race between the top two candidates, the difference was only 21,631 votes.15 With a targeted effort to engage the Latino electorate, the population could make a significant impact in close statewide races.
15 Secretary of State’s Georgia Election Results. Official Results of the July 18, 2006 Primary Election. Last updated on August 10, 2006, 2:05 P.M. Available online: http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/election_results/2006_0718/federal.htm
Page 13 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 2: Age Breakdown of Electorate Age Breakdown of Electorate Latino Non-Latino
18-24 22,764 16% 595,952 11%
25-39 56,094 38% 1,621,594 29%
40-60 53,745 37% 2,254,977 40%
Over 60 13,388 9% 1,172,050 21%
The Latino electorate is also younger that the non-Latino electorate in Georgia. 54% of the Latino electorate is under the age of 40, while in the non-Latino electorate that percentage drops to 40% who is under 40 years of age.
Table 3: Voter Registration Periods Registration Periods Latino
Pre 2004 Registration 61,928 42%
Post 2004 Registration 86,156 59%
In addition, the voter registration of the Latino electorate also indicates recent activity with over 59% of those registered to vote registering after 2004.
The three tables represent significant changes in the Georgia electorate. First, the Latino electorate is significant with 3% of the total electorate. Second, the Latino voter is a much younger than the rest of Georgia’s electorate. And finally, the Latino electorate is newer to the electoral process as indicated by the large percentage in the post 2004 registration numbers.
Page 14 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 4: Latino Registered Voter by Congressional District
U.S. *NOTE: There are 119 registered voters Congressional Total Latino Representative Latino who have their Congressional District listed District Registration Share as unknown. (Party Affiliation) 001 Kingston (R) 407,647 8,952 2.2% 002 Bishop (D) 372,750 5,290 1.4% Latino voters are active in all 003 Westmoreland (R) 517,057 11,334 2.2% of Georgia’s Congressional 004 Johnson (D) 399,299 11,139 2.8% delegation. Table 4 005 Lewis (D) 451,665 7,987 1.8% demonstrates the density of 006 Price (R) 498,675 15,188 3.0% the Latino electorate per 007 Linder (R) 506,261 23,185 4.6% Congressional District. 008 Marshall (D) 415,859 6,015 1.4% Similar to the statewide totals, 009 Deal (R) 454,135 15,294 3.4% the Latino electorate is in 010 Broun (R) 447,070 7,937 1.8% general less than 3%. 011 Gingrey (R) 463,225 13,079 2.8% However, in the 7th 012 Barrow (D) 402,670 6,470 1.6% Congressional District, U.S. 013 Scott (D) 454,138 14,118 3.1% Representative John Linder State Total* 5,790,570 145,991 2.5% (R) has the highest concentration of Latino voters, 4.6%, in his district. This also happens to have the highest number of Latino voters in the state, by Congressional district, with 23,185 Latino voters. Secondly, Congressman Nathan Deal (R-Gainesville) has 15,294 Latino voters in his 9th Congressional District, accounting for 3.4% of the electorate. Finally, the 13th Congressional District held by U.S. Representative David Scott (D) account 3.1% of his voters being Latino, accounting for a total of 14,118 Latino voters.
Further political analysis of the Congressional delegation also points towards a harsh attitude towards Latinos and immigrants by some within Georgia’s Congressional delegation. As noted in the Introduction, U.S. Representative Nathan
Page 15 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Deal (R-Gainesville) takes aim at the controversial issue of denying birthright citizenship to children whose parents are not U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. In addition, this type of anti-immigrant rhetoric is also present on both sides of the political aisle. U.S. Representative John Barrow (D-Savannah), held a press conference in December 2007 where he stated he would support banning access to K-12 education of children from undocumented parents. U.S. Representative John Barrow (D-Savannah) stated, “We already have legislation that denies medicare and medicaid benefits to people who have no right to be here. I believe it already is the policy of this federal government to require that a condition for Figure 1: U.S. Representative John getting federal aid and education is that you have to be legally Barrow (D-Savannah) entitled to be here in the first place. That’s the policy that I support.”16 U.S. Representative John Barrow (D-Savannah), a Harvard educated lawyer, has a small percentage of his electorate who is Latino with only 6,470 Latino registered voters, accounting for 1.6% of his electorate.
Contrary to anti-immigrant tactics of U.S. Representative Barrow, U.S. Representative John Lewis (D-Atlanta) has always maintained a focus on standing up for human rights. In fact, he recently participated in a town hall meeting spearheaded by U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) in Norcross where over 3,000 people gathered to urge for passage of a comprehensive immigration reform solution in Congress this year. The
event was part of a 17-city “Family Unity” tour Figure 2: U.S. Representative John Lewis (D-Atlanta) to focus on the negative impact that a failed immigration policy has had on families. At the town hall meeting, U.S.
16 Newton, John. “U.S. Congressman (John Barrow, D-Savannah) wants to ban immigrant children from public schools.” La Voz Latina Newspaper (Savannah, GA). December 2007. Available online: http://www.galeo.org/story.php?story_id=0000003886
Page 16 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Representative John Lewis (D-Atlanta) referred to the separation of families due to recent deportations and said, “What our government is doing is not right, it is not fair, not just and it must be brought to an end. I will do all that I can to help.”17 U.S. Representative John Lewis’ (D-Atlanta) district accounts for 7,987 Latino registered voters, which is 1.8% of his electorate. Obviously, the contrast between U.S. Representatives Lewis and Barrow is glaring even though both belong to the Democratic Party.
17 Gumbrecht, Jamie. “3,000 rally at Latino church for immigration reform.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, February 28, 2009. Available online: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2009/02/28/immigration_reform_rally.html
Page 17 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 5: Highest Latino Registered Voter Count by Senate District
Latino Senate State Senator Total Latino Share Analysis of the Georgia Senatorial District (Party Affiliation) Registration of SD Districts, an interesting trend begins to 045 R. Unterman (R) 143,177 7,737 5.4% appear. The density of Latino voters is 005 C. Thompson (D) 58,190 6,252 10.7% much more significant in some of these 009 D. Balfour (R) 114,589 5,982 5.2% districts. The statewide baseline of 3% 049 Hawkins (R) 91,915 5,435 5.9% of the electorate accounting for all 054 D. Thomas (R) 83,228 5,249 6.3% Latino voters is relatively small. This 027 J. Murphy (R) 153,200 4,607 3.0% was also apparent in the Congressional 037 J. Wiles (R) 125,414 4,573 3.6% districts. However, analyzing the 033 S. Thompson (D) 91,356 4,271 4.7% Georgia Senate districts, one can begin 048 D. Shafer (R) 112,104 4,207 3.8% to notice the greater density of Latino 021 C. Rogers (R) 116,025 3,942 3.4% voters in some areas. 006 D. Stoner (D) 98,537 3,896 4.0%
040 D. Weber (R) 91,689 3,429 3.7% 044 G. Buckner (D) 91,973 3,202 3.5% In total number of voters, Georgia State 056 D. Moody (R) 105,303 3,181 3.0% Senator R. Unterman (R-SD45) has 041 S. Henson (D) 92,622 3,134 3.4% 7,737 017 J. Douglas (R) 144,526 3,082 2.1% Latino 001 E. Johnson (R) 109,688 3,063 2.8% voters in 030 B. Hamrick (R) 123,887 3,023 2.4% her district, accounting for 5.4% of the overall electorate. Coming in second place, Georgia State Senator Curt Thompson (D- SD5) accounts for 10.7% of his electorate being Latino with a total of 6,252 Latino registered voters. Finally, Georgia State Senator Don Balfour (R-SD9) has 5.2% of the electorate in his district, a total of 5,982 Latino voters.
Georgia Senator Jack Murphy (R-SD27), lead sponsor of Figure 3: Korean Newspaper reporting on a meeting of immigrant rights groups on June Senate Bill 67 in 2009 would have mandated that the State 17, 2009.
Page 18 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
of Georgia would provide the exam for driver’s licenses only in English, with certain exceptions. The measure would make Georgia the only state in the nation with this restrictive requirement.18 Many immigrant rights and civil rights groups objected to the efforts and deemed the measure an anti-immigrant initiative that would send a conflicting message in Georgia’s effort to court Korean and Chinese foreign investment. The Korean American Coalition issued a press release stating, “The proposed bill also has a negative impact on foreign nationals, particularly those coming in who have significant foreign investments in the state, and on the international companies that stimulate economic growth.” The press release also went on to quote Georgia State Senator Seth Harp (R-Midland), openly concerned about the negative consequences relating to a KIA Motors manufacturing plant slated to open later this year in his Senate district: "This type of bill is not sending a positive message to those foreigners who are willing to invest their businesses in Georgia."19 The legislative initiative was coined the “SB67=Kia Go Home!” legislation by the immigrant rights groups working to oppose the legislation because of the mixed message being sent by the Georgia General Assembly. Ultimately, SB67 failed with a rare 22-22 vote in the Georgia Senate during the last legislative day due to the pressure by the immigrant rights groups. Nonetheless, SB67 is expected to return in the 2010 Legislative session and immigrant rights groups are coordinating efforts to defeat it once again.
SB67 was a divisive legislative initiative being billed as a “public safety” effort by Senator Jack Murphy, but the immigrant rights groups in Georgia and nationwide labeled the initiative anti-immigrant. Since Senator Jack Murphy (R-SD27) lead the efforts of this failed attempt to make Georgia the only state in the nation with the English-only access to the driver’s license exam, it is important to point out that his district has 4,607 Latino registered voters, accounting for 3% of the overall his district’s electorate. Similarly, it is also important to note that Sen. Unterman (R-SD45) voted
18 Zornes, Carl. “Georgia Drives Closer to English-only License Testing.” Georgia Public Broadcasting News, March 24, 2009. Available online: http://gpbnews.blogspot.com/2009/03/georgia-drives-closer-to-english-only.html 19 Park, Mike. “Korean American Coalition Opposes Senate Bill 67.” Press Release by the Korean American Coalition. March 18, 2009. Available online: http://www.galeo.org/story.php?story_id=0000005894
Page 19 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
twice for the passage of SB67, while Senator Curt Thompson (D-SD5) voted against SB67 twice.20 State Senators Thompson and Unterman both represent portions of Gwinnett County. In previous analysis, Gwinnett County was home to only 803 Latino registered voters in January 2003.21 As of January 2009 and accounting for the Latino surname-match analysis, Gwinnett County boasts 24,347 Latino registered voters (See Appendix A). Obviously, the growth trends are something to consider for the 2010 elections and beyond.
20 Georgia Senate. “SB 67 - Drivers' Licenses; examinations shall be administered only in English language; provide for an exception.” Senate Votes #157 & #440. Available online: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/sum/sb67.htm 21 Gonzalez, Jerry. Latino Voting Strength in Georgia: Making an Impact in 2008. GALEO. October 29, 2008. Available online: http://www.galeo.org/report.php?report_id=0000000145
Page 20 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 6 Highest Latino Registered Voter Count By House District
In the Georgia State House Legislative districts, one begins to see a significant share of the electorate being represented by the Latino community. For example, leading the state in the largest number of Latino voters in the district and also accounting for the highest percentage of the electorate, Georgia State Representative Roger Williams (R-HD4) of Dalton leads the pack with 2,976 Latino registered voters and 14% of his electorate. The share of Rep. Roger Williams’ House District is eleven percentage points above the state average of 3% for Latino registered voters.
Interestingly, Rep. Roger Williams (R, HD4) was also one of the leading authors of a failed proposed Georgia Constitutional Amendment which would have banned access to all public services, including banning access to K-12 education to undocumented children.22 Rep. Roger Williams (R, HD-4) also unsuccessfully co-lead efforts to promote legislation Figure 4: Georgia State Rep. Roger Williams (R-Dalton, HD4) which would have required proof of citizenship to register
22 Georgia House of Representatives. “HR 256 - Illegal aliens; bar from receiving public funded services – CA.” Submitted on 2/17/2005. Available online: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/sum/hr256.htm
Page 21 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
to vote in 2009.23 Instead, the intent of the legislation was moved forward using a Senate version, SB86, and State Representative James Mills (R, HD-25) carried it in the Georgia House of Representatives. SB 86 passed and Governor Perdue signed it into law; however, final clearance for the provision would have to be determined by the U.S. Department of Justice.24 Immigrant rights and civil rights groups, including GALEO, strongly objected throughout the legislative process of the potential impact SB86 would have on minority, poor and the elderly voting communities.
Following the largest number of Latino registered voters brings us to Cobb County with Georgia State Representative Donna Sheldon (R-HD105) with 2,801 Latino registered voters accounting for 5% of voters in her district. In Gwinnett County, Georgia State Representative Brian Thomas (D-HD100) follows with 2,553 Latino registered voters accounting for 12% of his district’s voters. It is important to note that Georgia State Representatives Carl Rogers (R-Gainesville, HD26) and Hugh Floyd (D-Gwinnett, HD99) also account for high percentages of Latino voters represented in their districts with 11% and 13% of their districts’ electorate being Latino voters, respectively.
Georgia State Representative Pedro “Pete” Marin (D-Norcross, HD99), Vice-Chair for GALEO, represents 1,637 Latino registered voters accounting for 9% of his electorate. Georgia State Representative Tony Sellier (R-Fort Valley, HD136), board member of GALEO, represents 632 Latino registered voters accounting for 2% of his district’s electorate (See Appendix C).
23 Georgia House of Representatives. “HB 45 - Elections and primaries; voter registration; proof of United States citizenship; provisions.” Submitted on Januray 13, 2009. Available online: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/sum/hb45.htm 24 Georgia Senate. “SB 86 - Voters; applying to register to vote; persons shall provide proof of U.S. citizenship prior to acceptance of registration.” Effective date set for July 1, 2009, pending pre-clearance from the U.S. Department of Justice. Available online: http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/sum/sb86.htm
Page 22 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 7 demonstrates the highest share of Latino registered voters by House District. Rep. Roger Williams (R-Dalton, HD4) leads the ranking with 14% Latino registered voters in his district.
Other noteworthy mentions would be Georgia State Representative Jill Chambers (R- Doraville, HD81) comes in with 8% of her electorate being Latino, accounting for 1,214 Latino registered voters. In addition, Georgia State Representative Carl Rogers (R- Gainesville, HD26) has 1,926 Latino registered voters accounting for 11% of his electorate.
Table 7 Highest Latino Registered Voter Share by House District
Page 23 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Section 2: Latino Voter Turn-Out Analysis
According to the Secretary of State’s General Election Voting History Report for the General Election held on November 4, 200825, Georgia’s voter participation in the 2008 General Election was 76% or 3,934,388 voters cast ballots out of 5,198,971 registered voters. Nationally, the Latino electorate in 2008 demonstrated an increase in voter participation as compared to the 2004 elections by increasing 2.7 percentage points from 47.2% to 49.9%.26
Using the statewide voter turn out of 76% for the General Election in November 2008 as one base of comparison, there is much room to grow for active participation by the Latino electorate. In fact, in all of the elections in Table 8, the Latino electorate underperformed in all of the metro Atlanta counties as compared to the total turnout for each of the counties.
25 Georgia Secretary of State, Report: SSVRZ376R3 issued on January 23, 2009. Website: http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/voter_registration/Turnout_by_demographics.htm 26 Lopez, Mark Hugo & Paul Taylor. “Dissecting the 2008 Electorate: Most Diverse in U.S. History.” Pew Hispanic Center, April 30, 2009. Available online: http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=108
Page 24 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 8: Metro Atlanta Counties Latino Voter Turn Out for 2008 Elections
However, when the base of comparison is made to the national Latino voter turn out rate of 49.9%, one begins to notice a significantly different pattern. 80% of the metropolitan Atlanta counties surpassed Latino voter participation rates, as compared to the national rate of 49.9% Latino voter turn out. Only four out of the twenty metropolitan Atlanta area counties listed in Table 8 demonstrated a lag in voter turn out as compared to the national Latino voter turn out rate of 49.9%. Three of these counties are within the range of the national rate with Bartow County at 49.4% Latino voter turn out rate, Clayton County at 49.5% and Walton at 49.3% Latino voter turn out. Spalding County had the lowest Latino voter turn out at 47.5%, 2.4 points below the national Latino voter turn out rate. On the other end of the spectrum, the highest Latino voter turn out rates were in Fayette County (68.5%),
Page 25 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Forsyth County (65.2%), Paulding County (61.7%), Cherokee County (60.2%) and Pickens County (60.1%). Fayette County is 18.6 points above the national Latino voter turn out rate, while Pickens County is 10.2 points above the rate of 49.9%.
Based upon the surname match analysis (Appendix A), the counties with the highest density of Latinos included Gwinnett, Cobb, Fulton and DeKalb, all of which out performed the national rate of 49.9% Latino voter turn out rate. Cobb and DeKalb Counties had the same Latino voter turn out rate at 58.7%, 8.8 points above the national average. Fulton County demonstrated 56% Latino voter turn out rate, 6.1 points above the national average, while Gwinnett County demonstrated 55.9% Latino voter participation, 6 points above the national rate of 49.9%.
Page 26 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 9: Congressional District Latino Voter Turn Out for 2008 General Election
U.S. Representative Tom Price’s (R) Congressional District # 6 showed the highest percentage of Latino voter turnout. In this district, 61.6% of the registered Latino voters voted in General Election. Compared to the national Latino voter turn out rate of 49.9%, Price’s district out performed the nation Latino voter turn out rate by 11.7 percentage points.
High Latino voter turnout of 59%, 9.1 points above the national rate, was also demonstrated in U.S. Representative Lynn Westmoreland’s (R) Congressional District # 3. In addition, U.S. Representative John Linder’s (R) 7th Congressional District had 57.7% of its registered Latino voters vote in the General Election, again above the national Latino voter turn out rate by 7.8 points. U.S. Representative Sanford Bishop (D) had the lowest Latino voter turn out in the state with only 41% participation in the General Election in 2008, 8.9 points below the national Latino voter turn out rate. With the exception of four Congressional Districts (1, 2, 9, and 12), most of the Congressional Districts demonstrated over 50% Latino participation within the General Election. In nine out of thirteen of the Congressional Districts, Latino voter turn out in Georgia out-performed the national rate of 49.9% Latino voter turn out.
Page 27 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 10: State Senate District Latino Voter Turn Out for 2008 General Election
Table 10 demonstrates the high voter turn out among Latinos in the General Election. State Senate District 21 had the highest Latino voter turnout, accounting for 2,551 out of 3,942, or 64.7%, of Latino registered voters to the polls. The 64.7% Latino voter turn out is significantly higher than the national rate of 49.9% by 14.8 percentage points.
A couple of factors may be attributed to the highest Latino voter turn out in Senate District 21. To begin with, the Senate District is currently held by the Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock). In 2006, Senator Rogers was the chief architect of the state’s infamous Senate Bill 529, which was deemed at the time as the most comprehensive anti-immigrant legislation in the nation. Senator Rogers (R- Woodstock) has also continued his anti-immigrant legislative efforts following his success in 2006 with SB529. The state’s hostile environment against immigrants and Latinos may be attributed to the work of Senator Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock). During his work on SB529, Senator Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) worked closely with the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a nationally recognized hate
Page 28 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
group by the Southern Poverty Law Center27 and regarded as an extremist group by the Anti-Defamation League.28 In addition, Senator Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) faced a retired U.S. Marine and a Latino Democratic candidate named Carlos Lopez in the 2008 General Election. Senator Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) won the election handily,29 but the show of the high Latino voter turn out could likely be attributed to counter Senator Rogers’ (R-Woodstock) hostility towards Latino immigrants and also attributed to the fact that Mr. Lopez was in the race.
State Senate District 27 also had a high turnout of Latino voters when 63.3% of registered Latinos voted, again out performing the national Latino voter turn out rate by 13.4 points. State Senator Jack Murphy (R-SD27) was the lead sponsor of SB67, a failed legislative initiative to make Georgia the only state in the nation to opt to offer the driver’s license exams in English-only.30
Also yielding high voter turnout of Latinos were Districts 48 and 45, with 61.0% and 60.9%, respectively. Again, these districts out performed the national Latino voter turn out rate by 11.1 and 11 percentage points. Both Senators Don Shafer (R, SD48) and Renee Unterman (R, SD45) voted in favor of SB67, the English-only legislation.
27 Beirich, Heidi. “The Teflon Nativists: FAIR Marked by ties to White Supremacy.” Intelligence Report, Winter 2007. Available online: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=1471 28 Anti-Defamation League. “Immigrants Targeted: Extremist Rhetoric Moves into the Mainstream.” 2008. Available online: http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/anti_immigrant/Immigrants%20Targeted%20UPDATE_2008.pdf 29 More detailed election results analysis is associated with Table 12. 30 See page XX for further
Page 29 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 11: State House District Latino Voter Turn Out for 2008 General Election
Table 11 shows that five State House Districts had turnout of greater than 60% of Latino voters. State House District 22 had the highest turnout when 1,143 of its 1,812 registered Latino voters, or 63.1%, participated in the 2008 General Election, out performing the national Latino voter turn out rate by 13.2 percentage points.
Georgia House District 105 had 61.0% of its registered Latinos voted in the election. Also notable are District 107 with Latino voter turnout of 60.9%, and Districts 35 and 98, each with 60.7% of Latino voter participation.
Only seventeen Georgia House Districts are highlighted here based upon the density of the Latino electorate. Again, a majority (12) of the House Districts out performed the national Latino voter turn out rate of 49.9%. Five of the Georgia House Districts outperformed the national Latino voter turn out rate by greater than 10 percentage points.
Unfortunately, Georgia State Representative Roger Williams (R-Dalton) only accounted for 43.4% Latino voter turn out, 6.5 points below the national average. Despite having the most Latino registered voters (2,976) in his district, more efforts should be made to ensure greater participation in future elections.
Page 30 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Section 3: County Highlights and Trends
Again, the data presented in the previous two sections was derived from the Georgia State Voter File obtained from the Secretary of State’s office in January 2009 and had been analyzed with a Latino surname match process. The data in this section “County Highlights and Trends” does not reflect data analysis associated with the surname match process. Consequently, the number of Latino voters indicated in the following tables is likely an undercount of actual Latino voters because it relies entirely upon the self-identification process in place with the Secretary of State’s voter registration process and the limitations outlined below. Regardless of the limitations, it is important to notice the growth trends presented here and recognize the undercount that likely exists based upon the reasoning outlined in the “NALEO Identification of Likely Latino Voters” section.
Methodology of Latino Voter Registration Growth Analysis
In understanding Georgia’s Latino voting strength, the trends over a six-year period demonstrate tremendous growth as compared to the growth rate of the overall demographics of Georgia’s registered voters. Simply assessing the Latino electorate with a static number would be a great misunderstanding of the electorate and its potential for a strong constituency. This analysis covers the period between January 1, 2003 and June 1, 2009. The data in “Section Three: County Highlights and Trends” is based upon the posting of the monthly updates of voter registration statistics by the Secretary of State31. The analysis in “Section Three: County Highlights and Trends” does not include the surname match analysis; therefore, the county numbers of Latino voters in this section will be lower than that of the previous two sections. Analysis was completed at the county level in order to determine growth patterns in various counties across the state and in order to establish a trend as compared to previous analysis.
31 Georgia. Office of the Secretary of State. Elections Division. SSVRZ188 Reports: Active Voters by Race/Gender Within County. Data has been collected and compiled by GALEO for over five years.
Page 31 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
The analysis will assist in the efforts of the Georgia Latino Vote initiative, a coalition of organizations and groups with the goal of registering eligible Latino U.S. citizens to participate in the upcoming 2010 elections.
Limitations of Latino Voter Registration Growth Analysis
The growth rate information is based upon the self-identified Latino registered voters only, accounting for about 83,403 as of January 1, 200932. Based on the Latino surname-match analysis by NALEO in 2009, the growth rate may be larger and continue to grow as more Latinos re-register to update their appropriate racial/ethnic data. With the surname-match analysis, the total number of Latino registered voters is estimated to be 145,991. The Georgia Latino Vote will continue to encourage Latinos to re-register in order to update their racial and ethnic data on voter registration cards.
The ethnic and racial categories collected by the Georgia Secretary of State for voter registration statistics is determined by the following categories: Black, White, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian, and “Other”. The American Indian category was added to the voter registration statistics collection in April 2007, according to the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office.33 The categories described will be the categories of classification for this report. Analysis of the “American Indian” category is not fully available as it was only recently added.
Importance of Proper Racial/Ethnic Data on Voter Registration Information
It is important for the Latino community to recognize the importance of racial/ethnic classification on voter registration cards in order to provide a more accurate reflection and understanding of Latino voting trends for a variety of reasons. To begin with, researchers utilize the information to study voting trends and voter participation in the
32 Based on previous estimates, this number is an undercount. See Note in Executive Summary and Introduction. 33 Gonzalez, Jerry. Phone Interview with Ralph Jones, Georgia Secretary of State’s Elections Division. Interview was conducted on November 7, 2007.
Page 32 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
state. Additionally, elected officials and politicians utilize the information on voter registration cards to formulate their legislative priorities based upon active voter participation of their constituents. The Latino registered voter community must be accurately reflected in order for both researchers and politicians/elected officials to gain a better understanding of the overall Latino electorate. Having more accurate information about their voting constituents, elected officials will then be able to prioritize Latino issues as worthwhile constituency concerns within their districts.
Page 33 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 12: Cherokee County Quick Facts
34 Total Population (2000 U.S. Census) 141,903
Est. Population (2006 U.S. Census) 195,327
Latino Population (2000 U.S. Census) 7,695
Est. Latino Population (2006 U.S. Census) 16,353
January 2003 Latino Voter Registration # 245
December 2004 Latino Voter Registration # 756
July 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 1,352
November 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 1,484
October 2008 Latino Voter Registration # 1,980
June 2009 Latino Voter Registration # 2,273 Growth Rate (January 2003 – June 2009) 828% Growth Rate (November 2007 – June 2009) 53% June 2009 "Other" Registered Voters 7,710
June 2009 Total Registered Voters 123,530
Cherokee County: This metropolitan Atlanta area county had 245 self-identified Latino voters in 2003. On June 2009, that number rose to 2,273, an 828% increase. The later figure rose from 1,484 in November 2007. This growth rate of 53% shows the impact of the Presidential Election in 2008.
Political Analysis: Based upon Cherokee County’s role in attempting to enforce an anti-immigrant rental property ordinance recently and being the home of State Senator Chip Rogers, author of SB529, it is important to note growth of both the Latino and Asian electorate. Cherokee County Board of Commissioners also contracted to work on the rental property ordinance with an attorney from the Federation of American
34 All Census estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. Population Estimates Program. 2006 Population Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder: Population Estimates. 12 Sept. 2007. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Page 34 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Immigration Reform (FAIR), labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center35 and an extremist group by the Anti-Defamation League36.
In addition, there was an unsuccessful Latino challenger, Carlos Lopez, for State Senator Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) during the 2008 elections. Mr. Carlos Lopez (Democratic Candidate) garnered only 18,776 votes or 23% of the total votes cast, compared to Georgia State Senator Chip Rogers’ (R-Woodtsock) 61,991 votes, 77%.37 In fact, most of the Senate District 21 is in Cherokee County and parts of it in Cobb County. Based upon analysis in the previous Section, Latino voter turn out for the race was as 64.7%, higher than the national turn out of Latino voters by 14.8 percentage points.
35 Beirich, Heidi. “The Teflon Nativists: FAIR Marked by ties to White Supremacy.” Intelligence Report, Winter 2007. Available online: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=1471 36 Anti-Defamation League. “Immigrants Targeted: Extremist Rhetoric Moves into the Mainstream.” 2008. Available online: http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/anti_immigrant/Immigrants%20Targeted%20UPDATE_2008.pdf 37 Georgia Secretary of State. Georgia Election Results, Official Results of the Tuesday, November 04, 2008 General Election. Update on February 18, 2009, 5:45 PM. Available online: http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/election_results/2008_1104/swgasenate.htm
Page 35 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 13: Cobb County Quick Facts
Total Population (2000 U.S. Census) 607,751
Est. Population (2006 U.S. Census) 679,325
Latino Population (2000 U.S. Census) 46,964
Est. Latino Population (2006 U.S. Census) 75,736
January 2003 Latino Voter Registration # 1,063
December 2004 Latino Voter Registration # 3,839
July 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 5,981
November 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 6,229
October 2008 Latino Voter Registration # 7,915
June 2009 Latino Voter Registration # 9,371 Growth Rate (January 2003 – June 2009) 782% Growth Rate (November 2007 – June 2009) 50% June 2009 "Other" Registered Voters 17,314
June 2009 Total Registered Voters 408,085
Cobb County: The growth rate of the self-identified Latino registered voters in Cobb County was 782% going from 1,063 in January 2003 to 9,371 in June 2009. It is important to note that the latest figure grew from 6,229 in November 2007. This growth rate of 50% shows the significance of the latest Presidential Elections.
Page 36 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Cobb County Political Analysis: Table Table 14: Cobb County Changing 14 demonstrates the changing Demographics of the Electorate demographics of the Cobb electorate. Race/ Jan-03 Jun-09 GROWTH Much of the growth in Cobb County’s Ethnicity White 239,538 276,561 37,023 registered voter population from January Black 50,828 96,908 46,080 Latino 1,063 9,371 8,308 2003 through June 2009 can be attributed ASPI 941 7,796 6,855 to the “Non-White” categories. With Black, Indian 0 135 135 Other 9,788 17,314 7,526 Asian, Hispanic, Indian and “Other” NONWhite 62,620 131,524 68,904 TOTAL categories together to form the “Non- 302,158 408,085 105,927 Electorate White” group, the total growth during this period was 68,904 registered voters (65%). On the other hand, the White category for registered voters in Cobb County grew by 37,023 registered voters (35%).
The growth rate is likely to continue its trajectory due to continued demographic changes and due to the growing anti-immigrant political reality within Cobb County. In 2007, Cobb County Commissioners approved a limit on the number of people that could live in households, a measure that was seen by many Latino activists as being anti- immigrant, and withheld an effort to pass an ordinance banning day laborers. Both measures were derided by several Latino groups. Additionally, the recent activity of perceived targeting of Latino families by law enforcement in Cobb County and the reality of the 287(g) agreement between Immigration Customs Enforcement and the Cobb County Sheriff has likely spurred the Latino community to engage in order to counter much of the anti-immigrant sentiment and anti-immigrant actions by elected officials and law enforcement officials in Cobb County. Furthermore, there have been reported problems with racial profiling of the African American community by law enforcement officials in Cobb County. The Georgia Latino Vote efforts will continue within Cobb County and working in collaboration with other minority groups to hold elected officials accountable for their actions and rhetoric by engaging the growing Latino and minority electorate.
Page 37 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 15: DeKalb County Quick Facts
Total Population (2000 U.S. Census) 665,865
Est. Population (2006 U.S. Census) 723,602
Latino Population (2000 U.S. Census) 52,542
Est. Latino Population (2006 U.S. Census) 69,676
January 2003 Latino Voter Registration # 1,318
December 2004 Latino Voter Registration # 2,622
July 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 2,977
November 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 3,041
October 2008 Latino Voter Registration # 4,075
June 2009 Latino Voter Registration # 4,700 Growth Rate (January 2003 – June 2009) 257% Growth Rate (November 2007 – June 2009) 55% June 2009 "Other" Registered Voters 24,989
June 2009 Total Registered Voters 421,523
DeKalb County: DeKalb County demonstrated significant but more measured growth rate among Latino registered voters as compared with some of the other metro-Atlanta counties like Cobb and Gwinnett Counties with an increase of 257%. In January 2003, there were only 1,318 self-identified Latino registered voters; that grew to 4,700 in June 2009. This number grew from 3,041 back in November 2007, a 55% growth rate.
Page 38 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 16: Fulton County Quick Facts
Total Population (2000 U.S. Census) 816,006
Est. Population (2006 U.S. Census) 960,009
Latino Population (2000 U.S. Census) 48,056
Est. Latino Population (2006 U.S. Census) 75,599
January 2003 Latino Voter Registration # 327
December 2004 Latino Voter Registration # 1,919
July 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 3,451
November 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 3,436
October 2008 Latino Voter Registration # 4,754
June 2009 Latino Voter Registration # 5,681 Growth Rate (January 2003 – June 2009) 1637% Growth Rate (November 2007 – June 2009) 65% June 2009 "Other" Registered Voters 55,878
June 2009 Total Registered Voters 569,718
Fulton County: According to the 2006 population estimate by the U.S. Census Bureau, Fulton County had a population of 960,009, while the U.S. Census estimates the Latino population in 2006 was approximately 75,599. From January 2003 to June 2009, the number of Latino self-identified registered voters grew 1,637%, from 327 to 5,681. The latest numbers show an increase of 65%, up from 3,436 registered voters in November 2007. Such an increase clearly reflects the influence of the 2008 Presidential election.
Page 39 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 17: Gwinnett County Quick Facts
Total Population (2000 U.S. Census) 588,448
Est. Population (2006 U.S. Census) 757,104
Latino Population (2000 U.S. Census) 64,137
Est. Latino Population (2006 U.S. Census) 129,381
January 2003 Latino Voter Registration # 803
December 2004 Latino Voter Registration # 5,360
July 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 9,020
November 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 9,719
October 2008 Latino Voter Registration # 13,504
June 2009 Latino Voter Registration # 15,593 Growth Rate (January 2003 – June 2009) 1,842% Growth Rate (November 2007 – June 2009) 60% June 2009 "Other" Registered Voters 32,051
June 2009 Total Registered Voters 390,495
Gwinnett County: In January 2003, Gwinnett County recorded a total of 803 Latino registered voters. On June 2009, this Metropolitan Atlanta County had 15,593 registered Latino voters, the highest number of self-identified Latino registered voters in the state (See Table 20). This demonstrates a 1,842% growth rate in self-identified Latino voters. The latest figure grew by 60%, up from 9,719 in November 2007.
Voter registration activity has been consistent in Gwinnett County. Gwinnett County was the first county to surpass the threshold of 10,000 Latino registered voters prior to the 2008 elections. In fact, it remains the only county in the state with over 15,000 Latino registered voters. The Georgia Latino Vote efforts continue strong in Gwinnett County and will continue in years to come.
Page 40 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Political Analysis: Similar to Cobb Table 18: Gwinnett County Changing County, there have been efforts to move Demographics of the Electorate towards implementing anti-immigrant ordinances and efforts to have Gwinnett Race/ Jan-03 Jun-09 GROWTH Ethnicity County attempt to regulate immigration White 196,847 234,706 37,859 policy with regards to the contractors that Black 30,289 89,781 59,492 Latino 803 15,593 14,790 do business with Gwinnett County. As ASPI 836 18,163 17,327 documented within Spanish print media, Indian 0 201 201 Other 12,549 32,051 19,502 there have also been some concerns about NONWhite 44,477 155,789 111,312 TOTAL law enforcement issues against the Latino 241,324 390,495 149,171 Electorate community. These initiatives and actions are being noticed by the Latino electorate and accountability will be an issue with future politicians and elected officials.
Table 18 demonstrates the changing demographics of the Gwinnett County electorate. Much of the growth in Gwinnett County’s registered voter population from January 2003 through June 2009 can be attributed to the “Non-White” categories, also similar to Cobb County. With Black, Asian, Hispanic, Indian and “Other” categories together to form the “Non-White” group, the total growth during this period was 111,312 registered voters (75%). On the other hand, the White category for registered voters in Gwinnett County grew by 37,859 registered voters (25%).
The changing demographics will play a critical role in determining current and future leadership positions within the county. Currently, Gwinnett County leadership does not reflect the changing demographics. Again, working in collaborative efforts within Gwinnett County will be essential towards ensuring the electorate is reflected among its leadership and elected positions.
Page 41 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Non-Metro Atlanta County Highlights: Table 19: Hall County Quick Facts
Total Population (2000 U.S. Census) 139,277
Est. Population (2006 U.S. Census) 173,256
Latino Population (2000 U.S. Census) 27,242
Est. Latino Population (2006 U.S. Census) 44,147
January 2003 Latino Voter Registration # 468
December 2004 Latino Voter Registration # 1,176
July 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 2,515
November 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 2,190
October 2008 Latino Voter Registration # 3,239
June 2009 Latino Voter Registration # 3,702 Growth Rate (January 2003 – June 2009) 691% Growth Rate (November 2007 – June 2009) 69% June 2009 "Other" Registered Voters 2,409
June 2009 Total Registered Voters 82,093
Hall County: Hall saw a 691% growth rate of self-identified Latino registered voters from January 2003 to June 2009, increasing from 468 to 3,702 Latino registered voters. The latest number saw an increase of 69% up from 2,190 in November 2007. Hall County ranks fifth in the concentration of Latino registered voters across Georgia (See Table 22). Efforts to register Latino voters have also been consistent in Hall County and will continue with the Georgia Latino Vote.
Political Analysis: Hall County has also seen anti-immigrant activity. Most recently, the Hall County Sheriff entered into a 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to deport people without legal status as part of the processing within the county jail. Hall County
Page 42 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund will also be home to a private for profit immigration detention facility run by Corrections Corporation of America.38
As noted in the Introduction, Hall County is also home to U.S. Representative Nathan Deal (R- Gainesville), and also a 2010 Republican Gubernatorial candidate. In 2006, U.S. Representative Nathan Deal (R-GA) held U.S. Congressional hearings in Gainesville to focus only upon challenges of local and state governments in dealing with an influx of immigrants to the region. There was not a single Latino or immigrant group that was represented officially or invited to participate during the Congressional hearings. An invitation was extended to the anti- immigrant group, the Dustin Inman Society. In fact, GALEO, along with other groups such as the Archdiocese of Atlanta and the American Immigration Lawyers Association-Atlanta Chapter held a press conference prior to the hearings in order to ensure a balanced message was heard. U.S. Representative Nathan Deal (R-Gainesville) made no mention to the economic power that is generated within the poultry industry in Gainesville. Deal also ignored the significant representation of Latino immigrant workers that work in the poultry industry. Again, the Latino electorate is listening and is engaging within Hall County.
38 Fox, Patrick. “Immigration detention center to open, hire: Private company to open facility by summer in former Hall County jail.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution, March 9, 2009. Available online: http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2009/03/09/hall_immigration_detention.html
Page 43 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 20: Whitfield County Quick Facts
Total Population (2000 U.S. Census) 83,525
Est. Population (2006 U.S. Census) 92,999
Latino Population (2000 U.S. Census) 18,419
Est. Latino Population (2006 U.S. Census) 27,205
January 2003 Latino Voter Registration # 699
December 2004 Latino Voter Registration # 1,317
July 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 1,787
November 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 1,907
October 2008 Latino Voter Registration # 2,603
June 2009 Latino Voter Registration # 3,015 Growth Rate (January 2003 – June 2009) 331% Growth Rate (November 2007 – June 2009) 58% June 2009 "Other" Registered Voters 1,445
June 2009 Total Registered Voters 41,137
Whitfield County: There was a 331% growth rate in self-identified Latino registered voters in Whitfield County. In January 2003, there were 699 Latinos registered to vote. That number increased to 3,015 Latinos registered to vote in June 2009.
Political Analysis: In addition, Dalton was also a host to U.S. Congressional hearings in 2006. The hearings were conducted with the exclusion of Latino immigrant groups. Similar to the Gainesville hearings, GALEO organized a press conference to ensure a balanced message was heard during the day. Fortunately, former U.S. Representative Hilda Solis (D-CA)39 participated in the hearings and also participated in the GALEO organized press conference. U.S. Representative Solis’ balance and inquiry during the hearings was an important moderating effort. Neither of the Georgia U.S. Representatives (Deal & Norwood) wanted to hear about the significant contributions of labor by the Latino immigrants in Dalton and their significant importance to the labor pool in the surrounding textile industry.
39 Hilda Solis is currently serving the Obama Administration as the U.S. Secretary of Labor.
Page 44 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 21: Muscogee County Quick Facts
Total Population (2000 U.S. Census) 186,291
Est. Population (2006 U.S. Census) 188,660
Latino Population (2000 U.S. Census) 8,372
Est. Latino Population (2006 U.S. Census) 7,111
January 2003 Latino Voter Registration # 506
December 2004 Latino Voter Registration # 945
July 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 1,250
November 2007 Latino Voter Registration # 1,306
October 2008 Latino Voter Registration # 1,728
June 2009 Latino Voter Registration # 2,015 Growth Rate (January 2003 – June 2009) 298% Growth Rate (November 2007 – June 2009) 54% June 2009 "Other" Registered Voters 2,632
June 2009 Total Registered Voters 106,710
Muscogee County: In January 2003, there were 506 Latino registered voters, which grew to 2,015 in 2009, a 298% growth rate. In fact, the latest figure of Latino registered voters grew 54%, up from 1,306 in November 2007.
Page 45 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Table 22: Ranking of Counties: Total Latino Registered Voters (June 2009)
Table 22 demonstrates the concentration of self-identified Latino voters and their total numbers by county. The highest concentration of self-identified Latino registered voters is in Gwinnett County with 15,593 Latino registered voters.40 Cobb County comes in second place at 9,371 self-identified Latino registered voters. The data is followed by Fulton and DeKalb counties with 5,681 and 4,700 self-identified Latino registered voters, respectively. The total number of self-identified Latino registered voters in the top fifteen counties listed above is 56,944.
Interestingly, the following non-metro Atlanta counties rise to the top as well: Hall & Whitfield counties. As of June 1, 2009, Hall County demonstrated 3,702 self-identified Latino registered voters while Whitfield County boasted 3,015.
It is important to note that active Latino voter registration and voter education efforts in the past several years have focused on many of the top counties indicated above. In
40 NOTE: According to the surname match analysis conducted in Appendix A, the actual number of Latino voters in Gwinnett County is 24,347. Relying upon self-identification data only leads to an undercount of Latino voters.
Page 46 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund fact, the Georgia Latino Vote effort has active voter registration efforts in the top seven counties: Gwinnett, Cobb, Fulton, DeKalb, Hall, Whitfield, and Clayton.
Page 47 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Figure 5: Self-Identified Latino Voter Registration for Gwinnett & Cobb Counties
Figure 5 illustrates the growth rate by displaying the actual count of self-identified Latino registered voters for Gwinnett and Cobb Counties during the periods between January 2003 through June 2009. The growth rate of self-identified Latino registered voters for Gwinnett County was demonstrated to be 1,842%, while the growth rate of Latino registered voters in Cobb County was 782%. This chart further demonstrates that Cobb County used to have the greatest number of self-identified Latino voters as compared to Gwinnett County. On January 2003, Cobb had 1,063 while Gwinnett County only had 803 self-identified Latino registered voters. The rank in order of self-identified Latino registered voters was similar in January 2004 with 2,402 and 2,282 for Cobb and Gwinnett Counties, respectively.
However, between January 2004 and December 2004, Latino voter registration jumped significantly in Gwinnett County to 5,360 self-identified Latino registered voters while
Page 48 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Cobb increased growth to 3,839 self-identified Latino registered voters but less than Gwinnett County’s total numbers. The growth rate during this time period for Gwinnett County was 135% while Cobb grew at a more measured rate of 60%. Both growth rates are still significant; however, the total numbers for Gwinnett County surpassed Cobb County at the time.
Page 49 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Figure 6: Self-identified Latino Voter Registration for Fulton & DeKalb Counties
Figure 6 illustrates the growth rate by displaying the actual count of self-identified Latino registered voters for Fulton and DeKalb Counties during January 2003 through June 2009. The growth rate of Latino registered voters for Fulton was demonstrated to be 1,637%, while the growth rate of Latino registered voters in DeKalb County was 256%. This figure further demonstrates that DeKalb County used to have a larger number of Latino registered voters as compared to Fulton County. On January 2003, DeKalb had 1,318 while Fulton County only had 327 self-identified Latino registered voters. The rank in order of self-identified Latino registered voters was similar in January 2004, December 2004 and December 2005 with DeKalb County leading the way.
Page 50 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
However, between December 2005 and November 2006, Latino voter registration surpassed DeKalb County’s lead when Fulton County recorded 3,026 self-identified Latino registered voters while DeKalb County had 2,913.
Political Analysis: It is important to note that between December 2005 and November 2006, the U.S. House of Representatives had passed an anti-immigrant immigration reform package, while the U.S. Senate passed a more favorable immigration reform package. In addition, Georgia passed SB529 in 2006 and Governor Perdue signed the legislation into law on April 17, 2006. Governor Perdue signed SB529 exactly one week after the nation and Georgia witnessed the historic and massive pro-immigrant marches. In Georgia, the pro-immigrant march drew well over 60,000 people and was held in DeKalb County.
Page 51 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Figure 7: Self-identified Latino Voter Registration for Hall & Whitfield Counties
Figure 7 illustrates the growth rate by displaying the actual count of self-identified Latino registered voters for Hall and Whitfield Counties during January 2003 through June 2009. The growth rate of self-identified Latino registered voters for Hall County was demonstrated to be 691%, while the growth rate in Whitfield County was 331%. This figure further demonstrates that Whitfield County used to have a larger number of self- identified Latino voters as compared to Hall County. On January 2003, Hall County had 468 self-identified Latino registered voters while Whitfield County had 699. The rank in order of self-identified Latino registered voters was similar in January 2004, December 2004 and December 2005 with Whitfield County leading the way.
Page 52 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
However, between December 2005 and November 2006, self-identified Latino voter registration for Hall County surpassed Whitfield County’s lead. Hall County recorded 1,817 self-identified Latino registered voters, while Whitfield County had 1,746.
Political Analysis: It is important to note that between December 2005 and November 2006, the U.S. House of Representatives had passed an anti-immigrant immigration reform package, while the U.S. Senate passed a more favorable immigration reform package. In addition, Georgia passed SB529 in 2006 and Governor Perdue signed the legislation into law on April 17, 2006. Governor Perdue signed SB529 exactly one week after the nation and Georgia witnessed the historic and massive pro-immigrant marches. In Georgia, the pro-immigrant march drew well over 60,000 people and was held in DeKalb County.
Page 53 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & The GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Conclusion
The Latino electorate certainly did take shape in 2008 and now should be considered a a force to be reckoned with. Over 145,991 Latinos in Georgia would have the potential to significantly impact future elections. Given the competitive nature of the campaigns, the potential exists for the Latino community to decide the 2010 elections in Georgia for Governor, the U.S. Senate race, Congressional races or state legislative races.
“Today we march, tomorrow we vote.” The slogan for the immigrant marches in 2006 have manifested into significant political power. Hundreds of thousands of Latinos and supporters marched in the streets all across this nation. In 2007, 1.4 million applied to become U.S. citizens. In 2008, the Latino vote determined the outcome for the Presidency in the Republican and the Democratic primaries, and also decided who currently sits in the White House.
Immigration is an issue that is significant to over 89% of the Latino electorate. Depending upon how the Latino and the immigrant community see either the candidates or political parties as being responsive to their issues and concerns, and how they have handled messaging around immigration could tip the scales in a number of close races. This message was loud and clear in the 2008 elections.
Latinos in Georgia have recognized the importance of engagement in the electoral process to ensure we can begin to turn the tide of open hostility against immigrants and the anti-Latino environment that has been created by Georgia’s current political leadership. The significant Latino voter turn out participation rates in the majority of Georgia’s jurisdictions indicate an engaged citizenry. Both parties have individual elected officials that have stirred ugly anti-immigrant rhetoric and the Latino electorate has been listening and engaging in the electoral process. It is only a matter of time when elected officials or candidates will pay with a lost election should they continue their anti-immigrant tactics.
Page 54 of 54 June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote / 888.54GALEO / www.galeo.org Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & the GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Appendix A:
County Totals and Turn Out
June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote 888.54GALEO / 888.544.2536 www.galeo.org Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A B C D E F
PPTOR: Number of PPTOD: Number of PTOR: Number of PTOD: Number of Number of Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in County NAME Hispanic Republican Democra c Republican General Democra c General Registrants Presiden al Presiden al Primary Primary Preference Primary Preference Primary
1 2 APPLING 153 1 12 0 1 3 ATKINSON 183 2 3 0 30 4 BACON 76 6 3 8 2 5 BAKER 20 1 4 1 3 6 BALDWIN 202 23 32 9 15 7 BANKS 148 13 14 10 3 8 BARROW 1,248 95 111 42 13 9 BARTOW 1,299 100 120 63 13 10 BEN HILL 130 5 9 4 9 11 BERRIEN 139 11 12 6 4 12 BIBB 797 71 95 21 20 13 BLECKLEY 44 3 3 0 9 14 BRANTLEY 96 5 9 1 13 15 BROOKS 112 8 9 1 7 16 BRYAN 465 53 34 25 7 17 BULLOCH 460 38 41 3 12 18 BURKE 128 10 11 2 4 19 BUTTS 191 28 25 11 5 20 CALHOUN 5 0 0 0 0 21 CAMDEN 981 73 59 77 12 22 CANDLER 164 6 7 2 10 23 CARROLL 1,118 85 125 30 20 24 CATOOSA 480 45 47 15 3 25 CHARLTON 33 2 4 0 4
6/29/09 Page 1 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A B C D E F
PPTOR: Number of PPTOD: Number of PTOR: Number of PTOD: Number of Number of Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in County NAME Hispanic Republican Democra c Republican General Democra c General Registrants Presiden al Presiden al Primary Primary Preference Primary Preference Primary
1 262 CHATHAM 3,736 318 408 54 75 27 CHATTAHOOCHEE 329 4 3 0 1 28 CHATTOOGA 131 5 5 0 4 29 CHEROKEE 4,295 491 464 160 30 30 CLARKE 1,606 70 267 30 52 31 CLAY 12 2 0 2 2 32 CLAYTON 4,255 193 633 48 251 33 CLINCH 14 1 1 0 6 34 COBB 16,365 1495 2469 230 241 35 COFFEE 496 25 26 5 77 36 COLQUITT 507 25 21 1 3 37 COLUMBIA 2,176 283 209 147 31 38 COOK 103 10 8 11 13 39 COWETA 1,940 234 204 55 6 40 CRAWFORD 61 7 4 7 2 41 CRISP 83 5 4 2 3 42 DADE 80 3 4 7 3 43 DAWSON 182 32 13 14 3 44 DECATUR 198 9 7 3 3 45 DEKALB 9,223 585 1863 161 523 46 DODGE 81 5 10 2 19 47 DOOLY 122 1 5 0 4 48 DOUGHERTY 499 40 40 15 40 49 DOUGLAS 2,046 184 282 53 29
6/29/09 Page 2 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A B C D E F
PPTOR: Number of PPTOD: Number of PTOR: Number of PTOD: Number of Number of Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in County NAME Hispanic Republican Democra c Republican General Democra c General Registrants Presiden al Presiden al Primary Primary Preference Primary Preference Primary
1 502 EARLY 28 1 3 0 6 51 ECHOLS 96 2 6 0 19 52 EFFINGHAM 486 68 58 42 10 53 ELBERT 118 17 7 9 11 54 EMANUEL 112 8 1 6 1 55 EVANS 119 6 3 1 5 56 FANNIN 102 14 8 11 1 57 FAYETTE 2,115 366 295 173 44 58 FLOYD 1,020 50 82 5 7 59 FORSYTH 3,112 446 346 126 38 60 FRANKLIN 85 8 9 2 5 61 FULTON 13,004 928 2005 74 336 62 GILMER 268 22 23 10 4 63 GLASCOCK 16 2 0 0 5 64 GLYNN 960 106 61 95 16 65 GORDON 1,015 32 81 24 22 66 GRADY 227 4 9 2 11 67 GREENE 79 3 8 2 1 68 GWINNETT 24,537 1844 3168 575 343 69 HABERSHAM 441 39 25 22 5 70 HALL 5,246 267 411 48 42 71 HANCOCK 18 2 4 0 8 72 HARALSON 76 9 9 6 1 73 HARRIS 393 64 41 9 6
6/29/09 Page 3 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A B C D E F
PPTOR: Number of PPTOD: Number of PTOR: Number of PTOD: Number of Number of Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in County NAME Hispanic Republican Democra c Republican General Democra c General Registrants Presiden al Presiden al Primary Primary Preference Primary Preference Primary
1 742 HART 106 8 9 4 4 75 HEARD 63 7 6 0 7 76 HENRY 3,503 326 472 113 65 77 HOUSTON 2,184 216 198 81 24 78 IRWIN 34 1 4 0 3 79 JACKSON 758 89 98 34 5 80 JASPER 89 14 6 9 4 81 JEFF DAVIS 165 3 3 1 16 82 JEFFERSON 63 2 8 2 7 83 JENKINS 32 2 1 0 4 84 JOHNSON 22 1 1 0 8 85 JONES 98 12 15 5 4 86 LAMAR 63 7 6 5 3 87 LANIER 73 4 2 0 13 88 LAURENS 216 13 24 7 17 89 LEE 214 30 16 33 5 90 LIBERTY 1,648 68 137 13 65 91 LINCOLN 23 2 1 2 1 92 LONG 279 6 13 6 48 93 LOWNDES 1,045 97 54 13 35 94 LUMPKIN 273 35 21 37 7 95 MACON 55 4 2 0 5 96 MADISON 182 19 16 13 1 97 MARION 111 8 6 4 5
6/29/09 Page 4 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A B C D E F
PPTOR: Number of PPTOD: Number of PTOR: Number of PTOD: Number of Number of Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in County NAME Hispanic Republican Democra c Republican General Democra c General Registrants Presiden al Presiden al Primary Primary Preference Primary Preference Primary
1 982 MCDUFFIE 118 8 12 7 2 99 MCINTOSH 73 11 3 5 0 100 MERIWETHER 99 12 11 2 4 101 MILLER 21 2 0 1 0 102 MITCHELL 103 7 6 2 6 103 MONROE 140 18 15 2 7 104 MONTGOMERY 48 5 2 5 7 105 MORGAN 84 15 7 2 6 106 MURRAY 826 28 57 8 15 107 MUSCOGEE 4,008 249 381 124 147 108 NEWTON 1,113 103 131 33 19 109 OCONEE 343 63 40 32 9 110 OGLETHORPE 80 7 8 5 4 111 PAULDING 2,167 239 268 120 35 112 PEACH 272 20 22 4 6 113 PICKENS 208 25 27 28 2 114 PIERCE 60 1 3 2 0 115 PIKE 88 13 11 11 0 116 POLK 414 18 29 5 5 117 PULASKI 40 4 1 0 13 118 PUTNAM 139 18 14 15 4 119 QUITMAN 7 0 2 0 3 120 RABUN 108 13 9 6 4 121 RANDOLPH 17 2 0 1 1
6/29/09 Page 5 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A B C D E F
PPTOR: Number of PPTOD: Number of PTOR: Number of PTOD: Number of Number of Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in County NAME Hispanic Republican Democra c Republican General Democra c General Registrants Presiden al Presiden al Primary Primary Preference Primary Preference Primary
1 1222 RICHMOND 2,547 180 241 64 85 123 ROCKDALE 1,295 99 173 34 17 124 SCHLEY 34 2 2 0 0 125 SCREVEN 33 3 6 2 6 126 SEMINOLE 65 4 8 1 13 127 SPALDING 461 44 39 18 15 128 STEPHENS 153 16 1 11 5 129 STEWART 16 1 0 0 2 130 SUMTER 222 9 15 4 10 131 TALBOT 30 2 5 1 6 132 TALIAFERRO 1 0 0 0 0 133 TATTNALL 302 8 20 3 29 134 TAYLOR 21 2 1 0 4 135 TELFAIR 63 3 4 0 12 136 TERRELL 22 2 0 0 3 137 THOMAS 286 17 20 0 4 138 TIFT 462 15 29 14 9 139 TOOMBS 360 7 23 13 7 140 TOWNS 41 6 0 1 2 141 TREUTLEN 19 0 4 0 8 142 TROUP 380 38 33 13 3 143 TURNER 38 3 1 0 6 144 TWIGGS 36 5 7 0 12 145 UNION 133 24 14 9 7
6/29/09 Page 6 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A B C D E F
PPTOR: Number of PPTOD: Number of PTOR: Number of PTOD: Number of Number of Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in County NAME Hispanic Republican Democra c Republican General Democra c General Registrants Presiden al Presiden al Primary Primary Preference Primary Preference Primary
1 1462 UPSON 96 7 7 7 1 147 WALKER 299 23 30 10 10 148 WALTON 767 84 60 44 11 149 WARE 176 15 8 20 2 150 WARREN 10 1 0 0 5 151 WASHINGTON 66 8 4 2 7 152 WAYNE 225 16 15 6 3 153 WEBSTER 7 1 0 0 0 154 WHEELER 42 0 1 0 6 155 WHITE 161 19 13 7 2 156 WHITFIELD 4,066 90 303 32 21 157 WILCOX 52 5 2 3 7 158 WILKES 39 4 5 1 7 159 WILKINSON 13 0 4 0 1 160 WORTH 83 7 13 1 11 161 145,882 11,644 17,691 3,703 3,601
6/29/09 Page 7 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A G H I J K L M RepTOPP: DemTOPP: TOTAL TOTAL La no La no Turnout in Turnout in RepTOP: La no GTO: Number of RTO: Number of Turnout in Turnout in Republican Democratic Turnout in County NAME Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Republican Democra c Presidential Presidential Republican General Elec on Statewide Run‐Off Presiden al Presiden al Preference Preference General Primary Preference Preference Primary Primary Primary Primary 1 2 APPLING 50 11 0.7% 7.8% 0.0% 3 ATKINSON 58 9 1.1% 1.6% 0.0% 4 BACON 34 10 7.9% 3.9% 10.5% 5 BAKER 8 1 5.0% 20.0% 5.0% 6 BALDWIN 129 55 11.4% 15.8% 4.5% 7 BANKS 68 22 8.8% 9.5% 6.8% 8 BARROW 671 179 7.6% 26% 8.9% 13% 3.4% 9 BARTOW 642 206 7.7% 25% 9.2% 15% 4.8% 10 BEN HILL 54 21 3.8% 6.9% 3.1% 11 BERRIEN 44 11 7.9% 8.6% 4.3% 12 BIBB 412 167 8.9% 11.9% 2.6% 13 BLECKLEY 21 10 6.8% 6.8% 0.0% 14 BRANTLEY 42 16 5.2% 9.4% 1.0% 15 BROOKS 47 14 7.1% 8.0% 0.9% 16 BRYAN 279 103 11.4% 7.3% 5.4% 17 BULLOCH 225 63 8.3% 8.9% 0.7% 18 BURKE 66 20 7.8% 8.6% 1.6% 19 BUTTS 120 48 14.7% 13.1% 5.8% 20 CALHOUN 1 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21 CAMDEN 394 105 7.4% 6.0% 7.8% 22 CANDLER 56 11 3.7% 4.3% 1.2% 23 CARROLL 598 187 7.6% 26% 11.2% 18% 2.7% 24 CATOOSA 255 67 9.4% 9.8% 3.1% 25 CHARLTON 16 1 6.1% 12.1% 0.0%
6/29/09 Page 8 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A G H I J K L M RepTOPP: DemTOPP: TOTAL TOTAL La no La no Turnout in Turnout in RepTOP: La no GTO: Number of RTO: Number of Turnout in Turnout in Republican Democratic Turnout in County NAME Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Republican Democra c Presidential Presidential Republican General Elec on Statewide Run‐Off Presiden al Presiden al Preference Preference General Primary Preference Preference Primary Primary Primary Primary 1 262 CHATHAMAPPLING 1860 616 8.5% 10.9% 1.4% 27 CHATTAHOOCHEE 56 2 1.2% 0.9% 0.0% 28 CHATTOOGA 30 3 3.8% 3.8% 0.0% 29 CHEROKEE 2585 909 11.4% 31% 10.8% 12% 3.7% 30 CLARKE 979 363 4.4% 16.6% 1.9% 31 CLAY 7 3 16.7% 0.0% 16.7% 32 CLAYTON 2106 746 4.5% 8% 14.9% 41% 1.1% 33 CLINCH 7 2 7.1% 7.1% 0.0% 34 COBB 9603 3776 9.1% 25% 15.1% 23% 1.4% 35 COFFEE 179 47 5.0% 5.2% 1.0% 36 COLQUITT 144 44 4.9% 4.1% 0.2% 37 COLUMBIA 1266 489 13.0% 9.6% 6.8% 38 COOK 43 16 9.7% 7.8% 10.7% 39 COWETA 1145 411 12.1% 29% 10.5% 15% 2.8% 40 CRAWFORD 33 12 11.5% 6.6% 11.5% 41 CRISP 37 13 6.0% 4.8% 2.4% 42 DADE 33 8 3.8% 5.0% 8.8% 43 DAWSON 109 51 17.6% 7.1% 7.7% 44 DECATUR 58 13 4.5% 3.5% 1.5% 45 DEKALB 5413 2458 6.3% 11% 20.2% 43% 1.7% 46 DODGE 41 30 6.2% 12.3% 2.5% 47 DOOLY 20 7 0.8% 4.1% 0.0% 48 DOUGHERTY 225 105 8.0% 8.0% 3.0% 49 DOUGLAS 1180 366 9.0% 23% 13.8% 27% 2.6%
6/29/09 Page 9 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A G H I J K L M RepTOPP: DemTOPP: TOTAL TOTAL La no La no Turnout in Turnout in RepTOP: La no GTO: Number of RTO: Number of Turnout in Turnout in Republican Democratic Turnout in County NAME Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Republican Democra c Presidential Presidential Republican General Elec on Statewide Run‐Off Presiden al Presiden al Preference Preference General Primary Preference Preference Primary Primary Primary Primary 1 502 EARLYAPPLING 17 4 3.6% 10.7% 0.0% 51 ECHOLS 35 7 2.1% 6.3% 0.0% 52 EFFINGHAM 253 98 14.0% 11.9% 8.6% 53 ELBERT 62 17 14.4% 5.9% 7.6% 54 EMANUEL 48 5 7.1% 0.9% 5.4% 55 EVANS 46 11 5.0% 2.5% 0.8% 56 FANNIN 47 20 13.7% 7.8% 10.8% 57 FAYETTE 1448 678 17.3% 32% 13.9% 21% 8.2% 58 FLOYD 432 90 4.9% 8.0% 0.5% 59 FORSYTH 2028 805 14.3% 36% 11.1% 12% 4.0% 60 FRANKLIN 48 24 9.4% 10.6% 2.4% 61 FULTON 7285 2872 7.1% 14% 15.4% 32% 0.6% 62 GILMER 119 37 8.2% 8.6% 3.7% 63 GLASCOCK 10 1 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 64 GLYNN 483 171 11.0% 6.4% 9.9% 65 GORDON 429 74 3.2% 8.0% 2.4% 66 GRADY 66 10 1.8% 4.0% 0.9% 67 GREENE 32 17 3.8% 10.1% 2.5% 68 GWINNETT 13710 4725 7.5% 25% 12.9% 21% 2.3% 69 HABERSHAM 174 54 8.8% 5.7% 5.0% 70 HALL 2395 542 5.1% 7.8% 0.9% 71 HANCOCK 8 7 11.1% 22.2% 0.0% 72 HARALSON 42 9 11.8% 11.8% 7.9% 73 HARRIS 236 99 16.3% 10.4% 2.3%
6/29/09 Page 10 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A G H I J K L M RepTOPP: DemTOPP: TOTAL TOTAL La no La no Turnout in Turnout in RepTOP: La no GTO: Number of RTO: Number of Turnout in Turnout in Republican Democratic Turnout in County NAME Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Republican Democra c Presidential Presidential Republican General Elec on Statewide Run‐Off Presiden al Presiden al Preference Preference General Primary Preference Preference Primary Primary Primary Primary 1 742 HARTAPPLING 66 19 7.5% 8.5% 3.8% 75 HEARD 25 13 11.1% 9.5% 0.0% 76 HENRY 2051 712 9.3% 22% 13.5% 24% 3.2% 77 HOUSTON 1206 367 9.9% 9.1% 3.7% 78 IRWIN 14 4 2.9% 11.8% 0.0% 79 JACKSON 464 170 11.7% 12.9% 4.5% 80 JASPER 48 19 15.7% 6.7% 10.1% 81 JEFF DAVIS 48 30 1.8% 1.8% 0.6% 82 JEFFERSON 35 15 3.2% 12.7% 3.2% 83 JENKINS 6 1 6.3% 3.1% 0.0% 84 JOHNSON 8 2 4.5% 4.5% 0.0% 85 JONES 66 28 12.2% 15.3% 5.1% 86 LAMAR 42 17 11.1% 9.5% 7.9% 87 LANIER 27 2 5.5% 2.7% 0.0% 88 LAURENS 126 39 6.0% 11.1% 3.2% 89 LEE 128 56 14.0% 7.5% 15.4% 90 LIBERTY 733 159 4.1% 8.3% 0.8% 91 LINCOLN 15 1 8.7% 4.3% 8.7% 92 LONG 101 11 2.2% 4.7% 2.2% 93 LOWNDES 509 148 9.3% 5.2% 1.2% 94 LUMPKIN 135 39 12.8% 7.7% 13.6% 95 MACON 22 9 7.3% 3.6% 0.0% 96 MADISON 101 29 10.4% 8.8% 7.1% 97 MARION 50 17 7.2% 5.4% 3.6%
6/29/09 Page 11 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A G H I J K L M RepTOPP: DemTOPP: TOTAL TOTAL La no La no Turnout in Turnout in RepTOP: La no GTO: Number of RTO: Number of Turnout in Turnout in Republican Democratic Turnout in County NAME Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Republican Democra c Presidential Presidential Republican General Elec on Statewide Run‐Off Presiden al Presiden al Preference Preference General Primary Preference Preference Primary Primary Primary Primary 1 982 MCDUFFIEAPPLING 57 17 6.8% 10.2% 5.9% 99 MCINTOSH 44 13 15.1% 4.1% 6.8% 100 MERIWETHER 53 21 12.1% 11.1% 2.0% 101 MILLER 5 1 9.5% 0.0% 4.8% 102 MITCHELL 31 13 6.8% 5.8% 1.9% 103 MONROE 70 26 12.9% 10.7% 1.4% 104 MONTGOMERY 25 10 10.4% 4.2% 10.4% 105 MORGAN 51 25 17.9% 8.3% 2.4% 106 MURRAY 377 59 3.4% 6.9% 1.0% 107 MUSCOGEE 1929 571 6.2% 9.5% 3.1% 108 NEWTON 626 230 9.3% 15% 11.8% 16% 3.0% 109 OCONEE 215 104 18.4% 11.7% 9.3% 110 OGLETHORPE 48 14 8.8% 10.0% 6.3% 111 PAULDING 1338 83 11.0% 27% 12.4% 17% 5.5% 112 PEACH 152 44 7.4% 8.1% 1.5% 113 PICKENS 125 44 12.0% 34% 13.0% 14% 13.5% 114 PIERCE 31 9 1.7% 5.0% 3.3% 115 PIKE 52 18 14.8% 12.5% 12.5% 116 POLK 159 32 4.3% 7.0% 1.2% 117 PULASKI 21 6 10.0% 2.5% 0.0% 118 PUTNAM 65 22 12.9% 10.1% 10.8% 119 QUITMAN 6 0 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% 120 RABUN 61 16 12.0% 8.3% 5.6% 121 RANDOLPH 6 1 11.8% 0.0% 5.9%
6/29/09 Page 12 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A G H I J K L M RepTOPP: DemTOPP: TOTAL TOTAL La no La no Turnout in Turnout in RepTOP: La no GTO: Number of RTO: Number of Turnout in Turnout in Republican Democratic Turnout in County NAME Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Republican Democra c Presidential Presidential Republican General Elec on Statewide Run‐Off Presiden al Presiden al Preference Preference General Primary Preference Preference Primary Primary Primary Primary 1 1222 RICHMONDAPPLING 1234 379 7.1% 9.5% 2.5% 123 ROCKDALE 638 231 7.6% 21% 13.4% 29% 2.6% 124 SCHLEY 13 4 5.9% 5.9% 0.0% 125 SCREVEN 20 11 9.1% 18.2% 6.1% 126 SEMINOLE 30 12 6.2% 12.3% 1.5% 127 SPALDING 219 83 9.5% 24% 8.5% 20% 3.9% 128 STEPHENS 66 26 10.5% 0.7% 7.2% 129 STEWART 11 4 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 130 SUMTER 85 25 4.1% 6.8% 1.8% 131 TALBOT 16 6 6.7% 16.7% 3.3% 132 TALIAFERRO 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 133 TATTNALL 100 31 2.6% 6.6% 1.0% 134 TAYLOR 10 5 9.5% 4.8% 0.0% 135 TELFAIR 23 11 4.8% 6.3% 0.0% 136 TERRELL 12 4 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 137 THOMAS 145 39 5.9% 7.0% 0.0% 138 TIFT 168 49 3.2% 6.3% 3.0% 139 TOOMBS 107 16 1.9% 6.4% 3.6% 140 TOWNS 25 9 14.6% 0.0% 2.4% 141 TREUTLEN 11 2 0.0% 21.1% 0.0% 142 TROUP 207 63 10.0% 8.7% 3.4% 143 TURNER 17 3 7.9% 2.6% 0.0% 144 TWIGGS 21 8 13.9% 19.4% 0.0% 145 UNION 92 42 18.0% 10.5% 6.8%
6/29/09 Page 13 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A G H I J K L M RepTOPP: DemTOPP: TOTAL TOTAL La no La no Turnout in Turnout in RepTOP: La no GTO: Number of RTO: Number of Turnout in Turnout in Republican Democratic Turnout in County NAME Hispanics Vo ng in Hispanics Vo ng in Republican Democra c Presidential Presidential Republican General Elec on Statewide Run‐Off Presiden al Presiden al Preference Preference General Primary Preference Preference Primary Primary Primary Primary 1 1462 UPSONAPPLING 45 18 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 147 WALKER 129 42 7.7% 10.0% 3.3% 148 WALTON 402 163 11.0% 31% 7.8% 13% 5.7% 149 WARE 76 32 8.5% 4.5% 11.4% 150 WARREN 7 4 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 151 WASHINGTON 37 11 12.1% 6.1% 3.0% 152 WAYNE 99 24 7.1% 6.7% 2.7% 153 WEBSTER 2 0 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 154 WHEELER 14 3 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 155 WHITE 92 32 11.8% 8.1% 4.3% 156 WHITFIELD 1794 237 2.2% 7.5% 0.8% 157 WILCOX 20 11 9.6% 3.8% 5.8% 158 WILKES 23 9 10.3% 12.8% 2.6% 159 WILKINSON 5 2 0.0% 30.8% 0.0% 160 WORTH 35 18 8.4% 15.7% 1.2% 161 78,525 27,160 8.0% 12.1% 2.5%
6/29/09 Page 14 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A N OPQR
GenTO: TOTAL ROTO: ROTO: DemTOP: La no La no Turn La no TOTAL Turnout in Turnout County NAME Out for Turnout in Turnout in Democra c in General Statewide Statewide General Primary General Election Run‐Off Run-Off Elec on 1 2 APPLING 0.7% 32.7% 7.2% 3 ATKINSON 16.4% 31.7% 4.9% 4 BACON 2.6% 44.7% 13.2% 5 BAKER 15.0% 40.0% 5.0% 6 BALDWIN 7.4% 63.9% 27.2% 7 BANKS 2.0% 45.9% 14.9% 8 BARROW 1.0% 53.8% 72% 14.3% 38% 9 BARTOW 1.0% 49.4% 71% 15.9% 36% 10 BEN HILL 6.9% 41.5% 16.2% 11 BERRIEN 2.9% 31.7% 7.9% 12 BIBB 2.5% 51.7% 21.0% 13 BLECKLEY 20.5% 47.7% 22.7% 14 BRANTLEY 13.5% 43.8% 16.7% 15 BROOKS 6.3% 42.0% 12.5% 16 BRYAN 1.5% 60.0% 22.2% 17 BULLOCH 2.6% 48.9% 13.7% 18 BURKE 3.1% 51.6% 15.6% 19 BUTTS 2.6% 62.8% 25.1% 20 CALHOUN 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 21 CAMDEN 1.2% 40.2% 10.7% 22 CANDLER 6.1% 34.1% 6.7% 23 CARROLL 1.8% 53.5% 75% 16.7% 40% 24 CATOOSA 0.6% 53.1% 14.0% 25 CHARLTON 12.1% 48.5% 3.0%
6/29/09 Page 15 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A N OPQR
GenTO: TOTAL ROTO: ROTO: DemTOP: La no La no Turn La no TOTAL Turnout in Turnout County NAME Out for Turnout in Turnout in Democra c in General Statewide Statewide General Primary General Election Run‐Off Run-Off Elec on 1 262 CHATHAMAPPLING 2.0% 49.8% 16.5% 27 CHATTAHOOCHEE 0.3% 17.0% 0.6% 28 CHATTOOGA 3.1% 22.9% 2.3% 29 CHEROKEE 0.7% 60.2% 79% 21.2% 44% 30 CLARKE 3.2% 61.0% 22.6% 31 CLAY 16.7% 58.3% 25.0% 32 CLAYTON 5.9% 49.5% 74% 17.5% 38% 33 CLINCH 42.9% 50.0% 14.3% 34 COBB 1.5% 58.7% 80% 23.1% 46% 35 COFFEE 15.5% 36.1% 9.5% 36 COLQUITT 0.6% 28.4% 8.7% 37 COLUMBIA 1.4% 58.2% 22.5% 38 COOK 12.6% 41.7% 15.5% 39 COWETA 0.3% 59.0% 76% 21.2% 42% 40 CRAWFORD 3.3% 54.1% 19.7% 41 CRISP 3.6% 44.6% 15.7% 42 DADE 3.8% 41.3% 10.0% 43 DAWSON 1.6% 59.9% 28.0% 44 DECATUR 1.5% 29.3% 6.6% 45 DEKALB 5.7% 58.7% 78% 26.7% 45% 46 DODGE 23.5% 50.6% 37.0% 47 DOOLY 3.3% 16.4% 5.7% 48 DOUGHERTY 8.0% 45.1% 21.0% 49 DOUGLAS 1.4% 57.7% 78% 17.9% 42%
6/29/09 Page 16 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A N OPQR
GenTO: TOTAL ROTO: ROTO: DemTOP: La no La no Turn La no TOTAL Turnout in Turnout County NAME Out for Turnout in Turnout in Democra c in General Statewide Statewide General Primary General Election Run‐Off Run-Off Elec on 1 502 EARLYAPPLING 21.4% 60.7% 14.3% 51 ECHOLS 19.8% 36.5% 7.3% 52 EFFINGHAM 2.1% 52.1% 20.2% 53 ELBERT 9.3% 52.5% 14.4% 54 EMANUEL 0.9% 42.9% 4.5% 55 EVANS 4.2% 38.7% 9.2% 56 FANNIN 1.0% 46.1% 19.6% 57 FAYETTE 2.1% 68.5% 83% 32.1% 52% 58 FLOYD 0.7% 42.4% 8.8% 59 FORSYTH 1.2% 65.2% 81% 25.9% 47% 60 FRANKLIN 5.9% 56.5% 28.2% 61 FULTON 2.6% 56.0% 73% 22.1% 40% 62 GILMER 1.5% 44.4% 13.8% 63 GLASCOCK 31.3% 62.5% 6.3% 64 GLYNN 1.7% 50.3% 17.8% 65 GORDON 2.2% 42.3% 7.3% 66 GRADY 4.8% 29.1% 4.4% 67 GREENE 1.3% 40.5% 21.5% 68 GWINNETT 1.4% 55.9% 76% 19.3% 43% 69 HABERSHAM 1.1% 39.5% 12.2% 70 HALL 0.8% 45.7% 10.3% 71 HANCOCK 44.4% 44.4% 38.9% 72 HARALSON 1.3% 55.3% 11.8% 73 HARRIS 1.5% 60.1% 25.2%
6/29/09 Page 17 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A N OPQR
GenTO: TOTAL ROTO: ROTO: DemTOP: La no La no Turn La no TOTAL Turnout in Turnout County NAME Out for Turnout in Turnout in Democra c in General Statewide Statewide General Primary General Election Run‐Off Run-Off Elec on 1 742 HARTAPPLING 3.8% 62.3% 17.9% 75 HEARD 11.1% 39.7% 20.6% 76 HENRY 1.9% 58.5% 78% 20.3% 42% 77 HOUSTON 1.1% 55.2% 16.8% 78 IRWIN 8.8% 41.2% 11.8% 79 JACKSON 0.7% 61.2% 22.4% 80 JASPER 4.5% 53.9% 21.3% 81 JEFF DAVIS 9.7% 29.1% 18.2% 82 JEFFERSON 11.1% 55.6% 23.8% 83 JENKINS 12.5% 18.8% 3.1% 84 JOHNSON 36.4% 36.4% 9.1% 85 JONES 4.1% 67.3% 28.6% 86 LAMAR 4.8% 66.7% 27.0% 87 LANIER 17.8% 37.0% 2.7% 88 LAURENS 7.9% 58.3% 18.1% 89 LEE 2.3% 59.8% 26.2% 90 LIBERTY 3.9% 44.5% 9.6% 91 LINCOLN 4.3% 65.2% 4.3% 92 LONG 17.2% 36.2% 3.9% 93 LOWNDES 3.3% 48.7% 14.2% 94 LUMPKIN 2.6% 49.5% 14.3% 95 MACON 9.1% 40.0% 16.4% 96 MADISON 0.5% 55.5% 15.9% 97 MARION 4.5% 45.0% 15.3%
6/29/09 Page 18 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A N OPQR
GenTO: TOTAL ROTO: ROTO: DemTOP: La no La no Turn La no TOTAL Turnout in Turnout County NAME Out for Turnout in Turnout in Democra c in General Statewide Statewide General Primary General Election Run‐Off Run-Off Elec on 1 982 MCDUFFIEAPPLING 1.7% 48.3% 14.4% 99 MCINTOSH 0.0% 60.3% 17.8% 100 MERIWETHER 4.0% 53.5% 21.2% 101 MILLER 0.0% 23.8% 4.8% 102 MITCHELL 5.8% 30.1% 12.6% 103 MONROE 5.0% 50.0% 18.6% 104 MONTGOMERY 14.6% 52.1% 20.8% 105 MORGAN 7.1% 60.7% 29.8% 106 MURRAY 1.8% 45.6% 7.1% 107 MUSCOGEE 3.7% 48.1% 14.2% 108 NEWTON 1.7% 56.2% 76% 20.7% 41% 109 OCONEE 2.6% 62.7% 30.3% 110 OGLETHORPE 5.0% 60.0% 17.5% 111 PAULDING 1.6% 61.7% 79% 3.8% 37% 112 PEACH 2.2% 55.9% 16.2% 113 PICKENS 1.0% 60.1% 76% 21.2% 43% 114 PIERCE 0.0% 51.7% 15.0% 115 PIKE 0.0% 59.1% 20.5% 116 POLK 1.2% 38.4% 7.7% 117 PULASKI 32.5% 52.5% 15.0% 118 PUTNAM 2.9% 46.8% 15.8% 119 QUITMAN 42.9% 85.7% 0.0% 120 RABUN 3.7% 56.5% 14.8% 121 RANDOLPH 5.9% 35.3% 5.9%
6/29/09 Page 19 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A N OPQR
GenTO: TOTAL ROTO: ROTO: DemTOP: La no La no Turn La no TOTAL Turnout in Turnout County NAME Out for Turnout in Turnout in Democra c in General Statewide Statewide General Primary General Election Run‐Off Run-Off Elec on 1 1222 RICHMONDAPPLING 3.3% 48.4% 14.9% 123 ROCKDALE 1.3% 49.3% 77% 17.8% 44% 124 SCHLEY 0.0% 38.2% 11.8% 125 SCREVEN 18.2% 60.6% 33.3% 126 SEMINOLE 20.0% 46.2% 18.5% 127 SPALDING 3.3% 47.5% 74% 18.0% 39% 128 STEPHENS 3.3% 43.1% 17.0% 129 STEWART 12.5% 68.8% 25.0% 130 SUMTER 4.5% 38.3% 11.3% 131 TALBOT 20.0% 53.3% 20.0% 132 TALIAFERRO 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 133 TATTNALL 9.6% 33.1% 10.3% 134 TAYLOR 19.0% 47.6% 23.8% 135 TELFAIR 19.0% 36.5% 17.5% 136 TERRELL 13.6% 54.5% 18.2% 137 THOMAS 1.4% 50.7% 13.6% 138 TIFT 1.9% 36.4% 10.6% 139 TOOMBS 1.9% 29.7% 4.4% 140 TOWNS 4.9% 61.0% 22.0% 141 TREUTLEN 42.1% 57.9% 10.5% 142 TROUP 0.8% 54.5% 16.6% 143 TURNER 15.8% 44.7% 7.9% 144 TWIGGS 33.3% 58.3% 22.2% 145 UNION 5.3% 69.2% 31.6%
6/29/09 Page 20 of 21 Appendix A County Totals and Voter Turn Out
A N OPQR
GenTO: TOTAL ROTO: ROTO: DemTOP: La no La no Turn La no TOTAL Turnout in Turnout County NAME Out for Turnout in Turnout in Democra c in General Statewide Statewide General Primary General Election Run‐Off Run-Off Elec on 1 1462 UPSONAPPLING 1.0% 46.9% 18.8% 147 WALKER 3.3% 43.1% 14.0% 148 WALTON 1.4% 52.4% 76% 21.3% 45% 149 WARE 1.1% 43.2% 18.2% 150 WARREN 50.0% 70.0% 40.0% 151 WASHINGTON 10.6% 56.1% 16.7% 152 WAYNE 1.3% 44.0% 10.7% 153 WEBSTER 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% 154 WHEELER 14.3% 33.3% 7.1% 155 WHITE 1.2% 57.1% 19.9% 156 WHITFIELD 0.5% 44.1% 5.8% 157 WILCOX 13.5% 38.5% 21.2% 158 WILKES 17.9% 59.0% 23.1% 159 WILKINSON 7.7% 38.5% 15.4% 160 WORTH 13.3% 42.2% 21.7% 161 2.5% 53.8% 18.6%
6/29/09 Page 21 of 21 Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & the GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Appendix B:
Georgia State Senate District Totals and Turn Out
June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote 888.54GALEO / 888.544.2536 www.galeo.org Appendix B Georgia State Senate Districts: Latino Voters and Turn Out
La no Voter % La no Senate La no Voter Turnout for Voter District Registra on Total General Turnout Elec on 1 3,062 1,632 53.3% 2 1,917 847 44.2% 3 2,143 979 45.7% 4 1,546 699 45.2% 5 6,248 2,771 44.4% 6 3,895 1,965 50.4% 7 1,337 500 37.4% 8 1,423 694 48.8% 9 5,979 3,508 58.7% 10 1,911 1,066 55.8% 11 1,198 377 31.5% 12 630 280 44.4% 13 1,050 455 43.3% 14 1,005 436 43.4% 15 2,571 1,000 38.9% 16 1,901 1,195 62.9% 17 3,052 1,786 58.5% 18 2,086 1,151 55.2% 19 2,245 875 39.0% 20 1,027 597 58.1% 21 3,942 2,551 64.7% 22 1,650 802 48.6% 23 1,237 599 48.4% 24 2,467 1,421 57.6% 25 827 467 56.5% 26 663 294 44.3% 27 4,606 2,914 63.3% 28 2,331 1,365 58.6% 29 2,545 1,423 55.9% 30 3,022 1,771 58.6% 31 2,563 1,359 53.0% 32 2,992 1,963 65.6% 33 4,271 2,246 52.6% 34 2,537 1,460 57.5% 35 2,368 1,231 52.0% 36 2,020 1,111 55.0% 37 4,573 2,865 62.7% 38 1,287 707 54.9% 39 1,946 1,025 52.7%
6/29/09 Page 1 of 2 Appendix B Georgia State Senate Districts: Latino Voters and Turn Out
La no Voter % La no Senate La no Voter Turnout for Voter District Registra on Total General Turnout Elec on 40 3,429 2,020 58.9% 41 3,134 1,836 58.6% 42 2,171 1,286 59.2% 43 1,783 926 51.9% 44 3,187 1,600 50.2% 45 7,737 4,712 60.9% 46 2,148 1,237 57.6% 47 2,471 1,455 58.9% 48 4,205 2,567 61.0% 49 5,435 2,490 45.8% 50 1,100 519 47.2% 51 1,503 813 54.1% 52 2,146 950 44.3% 53 903 404 44.7% 54 5,249 2,329 44.4% 55 2,023 1,202 59.4% 56 3,181 1,792 56.3%
6/29/09 Page 2 of 2 Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & the GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Appendix C:
Georgia State House District Totals and Turn Out
June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote 888.54GALEO / 888.544.2536 www.galeo.org Appendix C Georgia State House Districts : Latino Voters and Turn Out
La no Voter House La no Voter Turnout for % La no District Registra on Total General Voter Turnout Elec on 1 258 114 44.2% 2 228 99 43.4% 3 580 317 54.7% 4 2,976 1,293 43.4% 5 1,216 522 42.9% 6 1,196 535 44.7% 7 395 183 46.3% 8 301 192 63.8% 9 759 419 55.2% 10 519 217 41.8% 11 275 102 37.1% 12 543 273 50.3% 13 714 287 40.2% 14 568 300 52.8% 15 835 387 46.3% 16 449 176 39.2% 17 987 621 62.9% 18 405 202 49.9% 19 1,202 728 60.6% 20 1,169 657 56.2% 21 1,235 735 59.5% 22 1,812 1,143 63.1% 23 1,391 892 64.1% 24 1,451 985 67.9% 25 1,899 1,015 53.4% 26 1,926 681 35.4% 27 674 369 54.7% 28 328 150 45.7% 29 214 133 62.1% 30 301 155 51.5% 31 1,568 829 52.9% 32 1,453 903 62.1% 33 1,338 801 59.9% 34 1,231 701 56.9% 35 1,814 1,102 60.7% 36 1,056 705 66.8% 37 1,524 797 52.3% 38 1,135 548 48.3% 39 1,153 613 53.2%
6/29/09 Page 1 of 5 Appendix C Georgia State House Districts : Latino Voters and Turn Out
La no Voter House La no Voter Turnout for % La no District Registra on Total General Voter Turnout Elec on 40 1,253 486 38.8% 41 979 553 56.5% 42 1,143 774 67.7% 43 1,045 747 71.5% 44 596 354 59.4% 45 769 580 75.4% 46 1,191 780 65.5% 47 1,238 715 57.8% 48 1,031 553 53.6% 49 937 521 55.6% 50 1,000 607 60.7% 51 969 626 64.6% 52 857 461 53.8% 53 358 194 54.2% 54 833 482 57.9% 55 476 246 51.7% 56 721 347 48.1% 57 1,013 588 58.0% 58 563 339 60.2% 59 722 433 60.0% 60 448 187 41.7% 61 423 186 44.0% 62 456 195 42.8% 63 730 467 64.0% 64 561 300 53.5% 65 803 408 50.8% 66 658 371 56.4% 67 1,010 582 57.6% 68 710 407 57.3% 69 325 166 51.1% 70 1,030 576 55.9% 71 925 576 62.3% 72 1,166 800 68.6% 73 967 592 61.2% 74 671 396 59.0% 75 783 333 42.5% 76 995 530 53.3% 77 704 398 56.5% 78 1,241 691 55.7%
6/29/09 Page 2 of 5 Appendix C Georgia State House Districts : Latino Voters and Turn Out
La no Voter House La no Voter Turnout for % La no District Registra on Total General Voter Turnout Elec on 79 962 578 60.1% 80 965 505 52.3% 81 1,214 588 48.4% 82 1,128 698 61.9% 83 811 537 66.2% 84 396 264 66.7% 85 381 245 64.3% 86 524 282 53.8% 87 526 309 58.7% 88 588 362 61.6% 89 323 189 58.5% 90 654 357 54.6% 91 521 313 60.1% 92 388 236 60.8% 93 576 320 55.6% 94 753 339 45.0% 95 1,069 617 57.7% 96 1,633 751 46.0% 97 1,630 972 59.6% 98 2,289 1,389 60.7% 99 1,611 626 38.9% 100 2,553 1,184 46.4% 101 2,185 1,274 58.3% 102 1,461 858 58.7% 103 2,156 1,288 59.7% 104 2,236 1,213 54.2% 105 2,801 1,709 61.0% 106 1,104 653 59.1% 107 1,813 1,104 60.9% 108 1,218 653 53.6% 109 1,473 876 59.5% 110 960 528 55.0% 111 492 254 51.6% 112 422 259 61.4% 113 619 406 65.6% 114 796 449 56.4% 115 605 381 63.0% 116 254 117 46.1% 117 1,036 593 57.2%
6/29/09 Page 3 of 5 Appendix C Georgia State House Districts : Latino Voters and Turn Out
La no Voter House La no Voter Turnout for % La no District Registra on Total General Voter Turnout Elec on 118 1,032 608 58.9% 119 632 326 51.6% 120 621 290 46.7% 121 335 164 49.0% 122 661 345 52.2% 123 563 259 46.0% 124 179 91 50.8% 125 260 141 54.2% 126 319 166 52.0% 127 195 104 53.3% 128 218 112 51.4% 129 552 338 61.2% 130 1,026 472 46.0% 131 1,402 764 54.5% 132 719 267 37.1% 133 775 366 47.2% 134 374 153 40.9% 135 254 119 46.9% 136 632 346 54.7% 137 353 220 62.3% 138 145 61 42.1% 139 144 57 39.6% 140 185 104 56.2% 141 210 133 63.3% 142 138 74 53.6% 143 218 128 58.7% 144 210 100 47.6% 145 718 348 48.5% 146 1,018 592 58.2% 147 344 164 47.7% 148 440 117 26.6% 149 148 66 44.6% 150 223 107 48.0% 151 225 100 44.4% 152 314 157 50.0% 153 485 175 36.1% 154 268 104 38.8% 155 453 150 33.1% 156 382 154 40.3%
6/29/09 Page 4 of 5 Appendix C Georgia State House Districts : Latino Voters and Turn Out
La no Voter House La no Voter Turnout for % La no District Registra on Total General Voter Turnout Elec on 157 224 117 52.2% 158 403 206 51.1% 159 1,177 601 51.1% 160 650 249 38.3% 161 345 189 54.8% 162 617 271 43.9% 163 575 368 64.0% 164 1,153 616 53.4% 165 1,415 665 47.0% 166 623 195 31.3% 167 810 396 48.9% 168 410 146 35.6% 169 688 239 34.7% 170 486 140 28.8% 171 300 101 33.7% 172 334 91 27.2% 173 361 172 47.6% 174 416 186 44.7% 175 452 228 50.4% 176 538 234 43.5% 177 209 92 44.0% 178 297 137 46.1% 179 494 227 46.0% 180 1,027 413 40.2%
6/29/09 Page 5 of 5 Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & the GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Appendix D:
Data from June 1, 2009
June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote 888.54GALEO / 888.544.2536 www.galeo.org Appendix D Sec. of State Data from June 1, 2009
A B C D E F G H I J K L M BLACK BLACK WHITE WHITE ASIA-PI ASIA-PI HISP-LT HISP-LT INDIAN INDIAN COUNTY NAME OTHER TOTAL 1 FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE 2 APPLING 1,147 827 4,110 3,536 13 14 38 37 1 2 106 9,831 3 ATKINSON 526 369 1,642 1,485 3 2 60 58 0 0 5 4,150 4 BACON 500 279 2,450 2,117 3 3 11 10 0 0 61 5,434 5 BAKER 625 457 601 539 4 2 2 1 1 0 28 2,260 6 BALDWIN 5,033 3,250 6,619 5,734 65 52 52 29 4 5 457 21,300 7 BANKS 92 100 4,374 4,012 24 18 33 39 6 1 166 8,865 8 BARROW 2,210 1,704 15,447 13,583 268 254 375 378 2 3 1,595 35,819 9 BARTOW 2,928 2,200 24,043 21,656 112 105 368 366 11 10 1,033 52,832 10 BEN HILL 1,856 1,146 3,095 2,649 9 5 44 31 1 0 93 8,929 11 BERRIEN 613 430 4,414 3,789 6 6 30 24 0 2 125 9,439 12 BIBB 25,960 16,844 23,311 19,346 244 243 181 136 8 15 2,065 88,353 13 BLECKLEY 782 494 2,695 2,428 10 12 11 8 0 0 84 6,524 14 BRANTLEY 168 124 4,659 3,991 5 1 13 6 0 1 133 9,101 15 BROOKS 1,757 1,264 2,898 2,500 6 3 26 22 1 2 303 8,782 16 BRYAN 1,375 1,061 7,791 6,916 72 44 123 97 5 4 704 18,192 17 BULLOCH 5,389 3,911 13,349 12,200 100 94 112 99 5 3 690 35,952 18 BURKE 3,831 2,615 3,432 3,152 16 10 16 25 0 2 170 13,269 19 BUTTS 1,635 1,247 4,626 4,216 11 6 36 29 0 2 911 12,719 20 CALHOUN 1,032 712 621 530 5 5 0 1 0 0 22 2,928 21 CAMDEN 3,186 2,233 10,926 9,164 136 63 238 173 7 7 1,376 27,509 22 CANDLER 715 503 1,981 1,753 7 4 44 30 0 0 37 5,074 23 CARROLL 5,983 4,286 23,941 20,914 116 75 247 206 2 2 4,412 60,184 24 CATOOSA 335 265 18,935 15,864 68 66 87 98 3 4 1,083 36,808 25 CHARLTON 745 548 2,090 1,815 4 9 7 6 2 0 126 5,352 26 CHATHAM 32,620 22,804 43,161 37,656 574 501 848 641 19 19 5,947 144,790 27 CHATTAHOOCHEE 605 500 1,023 977 24 19 80 99 2 0 97 3,426 28 CHATTOOGA 594 494 6,168 5,258 15 13 22 43 1 1 171 12,780 29 CHEROKEE 3,339 2,593 56,044 50,595 545 405 1,227 1,046 13 13 7,710 123,530 30 CLARKE 9,934 6,499 20,885 18,725 529 418 477 406 6 4 3,231 61,114 31 CLAY 687 391 428 389 1 1 0 2 0 0 17 1,916 32 CLAYTON 57,099 40,518 13,680 11,656 1,303 1,380 1,232 1,121 13 12 10,123 138,137 33 CLINCH 674 439 1,401 1,226 4 2 4 4 0 0 49 3,803 34 COBB 56,867 40,041 145,522 131,039 4,084 3,712 5,101 4,270 77 58 17,314 408,085 35 COFFEE 3,319 2,290 7,827 6,698 35 39 148 148 5 3 112 20,624 36 COLQUITT 2,770 1,946 7,974 6,761 24 18 154 141 2 2 536 20,328 37 COLUMBIA 5,440 4,155 30,155 27,038 854 652 506 403 9 3 4,197 73,412 38 COOK 1,333 935 3,111 2,673 6 10 25 23 1 1 214 8,332 39 COWETA 6,768 4,787 29,958 26,676 220 156 491 473 1 3 3,642 73,175 40 CRAWFORD 922 710 2,777 2,515 3 1 5 11 0 1 185 7,130 41 CRISP 2,617 1,615 3,472 2,823 21 17 28 14 1 3 284 10,895 42 DADE 24 23 5,099 4,580 10 8 12 8 1 0 289 10,054 43 DAWSON 20 23 6,863 6,281 23 16 43 39 1 4 321 13,634 44 DECATUR 3,314 2,068 4,996 4,232 24 13 58 55 3 1 292 15,056 45 DEKALB 136,990 97,904 80,095 69,645 3,589 3,422 2,566 2,134 107 82 24,989 421,523
6/29/09 Page 1 of 4 Appendix D Sec. of State Data from June 1, 2009
A B C D E F G H I J K L M BLACK BLACK WHITE WHITE ASIA-PI ASIA-PI HISP-LT HISP-LT INDIAN INDIAN COUNTY NAME OTHER TOTAL 1 FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE 46 DODGE 1,623 1,014 4,281 3,842 11 4 17 10 2 0 111 10,915 47 DOOLY 1,638 1,049 1,480 1,348 9 5 23 19 0 0 115 5,686 48 DOUGHERTY 20,135 13,228 10,462 8,719 94 82 128 94 8 6 1,327 54,283 49 DOUGLAS 15,594 11,079 21,159 18,635 226 193 599 439 5 5 4,723 72,657 50 EARLY 1,931 1,294 1,980 1,726 7 4 9 2 0 2 53 7,008 51 ECHOLS 65 39 808 731 1 1 29 22 0 0 32 1,728 52 EFFINGHAM 2,042 1,575 13,170 12,259 70 33 88 97 2 2 559 29,897 53 ELBERT 1,969 1,392 4,291 3,805 16 16 23 18 0 1 111 11,642 54 EMANUEL 2,362 1,595 4,372 3,870 7 10 26 18 1 1 142 12,404 55 EVANS 967 601 1,979 1,724 9 4 36 25 0 0 65 5,410 56 FANNIN 8 9 7,656 6,938 6 7 8 12 3 2 169 14,818 57 FAYETTE 7,033 5,578 27,449 24,811 493 394 545 433 6 2 6,303 73,047 58 FLOYD 3,823 2,463 22,018 18,632 172 162 318 351 5 5 902 48,851 59 FORSYTH 1,132 920 45,934 42,090 891 806 878 738 10 8 3,235 96,642 60 FRANKLIN 496 312 5,578 4,945 25 21 24 24 1 2 97 11,525 61 FULTON 140,474 104,823 131,091 122,931 4,472 4,301 2,967 2,714 42 25 55,878 569,718 62 GILMER 13 15 7,884 7,234 7 6 47 74 1 0 325 15,606 63 GLASCOCK 67 45 895 766 0 0 2 3 0 0 21 1,799 64 GLYNN 6,264 4,312 18,767 15,747 114 76 194 154 2 4 1,469 47,103 65 GORDON 538 416 12,695 11,367 57 48 380 352 5 4 331 26,193 66 GRADY 2,360 1,579 5,052 4,371 13 15 60 42 0 0 276 13,768 67 GREENE 2,085 1,487 3,408 3,070 14 13 18 19 0 0 190 10,304 68 GWINNETT 51,911 37,870 123,576 111,130 8,982 9,181 8,433 7,160 115 86 32,051 390,495 69 HABERSHAM 205 166 10,201 9,091 83 81 92 147 3 3 343 20,415 70 HALL 3,616 2,547 36,715 32,440 338 325 1,836 1,866 1 0 2,409 82,093 71 HANCOCK 2,559 2,006 635 668 3 2 3 3 0 0 48 5,927 72 HARALSON 378 272 7,545 6,624 17 19 19 11 1 0 434 15,320 73 HARRIS 1,720 1,497 8,300 7,721 70 27 91 75 0 0 473 19,974 74 HART 1,260 885 5,828 5,202 34 37 28 20 0 1 183 13,478 75 HEARD 387 330 2,982 2,598 7 2 11 13 0 0 215 6,545 76 HENRY 22,534 16,134 35,290 31,578 697 575 1,009 785 7 2 8,704 117,315 77 HOUSTON 11,835 8,362 27,091 23,866 535 387 586 497 17 14 2,298 75,488 78 IRWIN 760 460 1,936 1,719 2 4 10 10 0 0 35 4,936 79 JACKSON 1,075 836 14,462 12,947 130 112 229 208 0 2 769 30,770 80 JASPER 982 737 3,189 3,035 6 10 20 16 1 0 116 8,112 81 JEFF DAVIS 719 480 3,466 2,976 4 3 52 35 1 0 79 7,815 82 JEFFERSON 3,287 2,226 2,408 2,101 4 4 12 7 0 1 126 10,176 83 JENKINS 1,173 779 1,581 1,387 5 5 9 7 1 2 47 4,996 84 JOHNSON 917 571 1,773 1,632 6 4 0 3 0 0 36 4,942 85 JONES 2,329 1,704 6,201 5,470 38 24 26 18 3 8 87 15,908 86 LAMAR 1,623 1,195 3,882 3,493 13 8 18 11 0 0 352 10,595 87 LANIER 604 438 1,782 1,461 8 5 16 6 2 1 140 4,463 88 LAURENS 5,260 3,630 9,154 8,164 59 50 52 39 1 0 378 26,787 89 LEE 1,548 1,185 7,494 6,677 54 45 58 29 0 2 653 17,745
6/29/09 Page 2 of 4 Appendix D Sec. of State Data from June 1, 2009
A B C D E F G H I J K L M BLACK BLACK WHITE WHITE ASIA-PI ASIA-PI HISP-LT HISP-LT INDIAN INDIAN COUNTY NAME OTHER TOTAL 1 FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE 90 LIBERTY 7,214 4,831 5,560 4,393 232 110 628 420 14 10 1,431 24,843 91 LINCOLN 959 701 1,959 1,876 3 2 8 2 0 0 78 5,588 92 LONG 763 555 2,064 1,839 27 16 95 65 1 1 218 5,644 93 LOWNDES 10,368 6,850 17,336 15,061 196 125 226 178 2 2 2,140 52,484 94 LUMPKIN 72 69 7,578 6,792 24 10 75 69 16 22 575 15,302 95 MACON 2,525 1,817 1,342 1,204 24 23 14 14 0 0 83 7,046 96 MADISON 686 498 7,107 6,275 35 19 46 31 0 0 306 15,003 97 MARION 830 619 1,449 1,354 7 7 23 27 1 0 76 4,393 98 MCDUFFIE 2,844 1,832 4,416 3,736 9 11 24 20 0 0 209 13,101 99 MCINTOSH 1,554 1,246 2,684 2,511 8 11 16 7 1 1 145 8,184 100 MERIWETHER 2,990 2,199 4,143 3,736 10 13 19 25 4 0 469 13,608 101 MILLER 578 395 1,562 1,336 1 3 1 2 0 0 61 3,939 102 MITCHELL 3,120 2,023 3,436 2,929 18 12 23 22 0 2 210 11,795 103 MONROE 2,006 1,536 6,044 5,447 26 22 28 24 2 0 566 15,701 104 MONTGOMERY 625 435 1,888 1,686 1 3 13 13 0 0 19 4,683 105 MORGAN 1,469 1,083 4,458 4,010 12 11 23 17 0 0 244 11,327 106 MURRAY 38 44 8,731 7,868 16 10 248 299 2 1 638 17,895 107 MUSCOGEE 29,371 20,161 28,286 23,049 734 446 1,084 931 9 7 2,632 106,710 108 NEWTON 13,218 9,137 17,171 15,179 105 98 320 243 16 14 1,259 56,760 109 OCONEE 502 373 10,124 9,083 141 119 94 93 2 1 458 20,990 110 OGLETHORPE 759 529 3,620 3,263 10 5 20 17 1 0 172 8,396 111 PAULDING 6,851 5,056 30,652 27,417 170 115 584 494 4 2 3,912 75,257 112 PEACH 3,861 2,969 4,058 3,724 39 25 109 83 5 6 147 15,026 113 PICKENS 75 67 8,672 7,787 19 15 56 48 6 3 389 17,137 114 PIERCE 501 370 4,493 3,707 8 2 11 9 0 0 146 9,247 115 PIKE 623 496 4,689 4,310 9 7 14 14 2 1 493 10,658 116 POLK 1,553 1,097 9,009 8,137 20 9 101 126 1 1 636 20,690 117 PULASKI 864 553 1,920 1,748 8 8 8 4 0 0 55 5,168 118 PUTNAM 1,672 1,152 4,736 4,212 20 20 25 31 0 0 208 12,076 119 QUITMAN 413 265 415 381 0 0 1 1 0 0 13 1,489 120 RABUN 27 14 5,096 4,537 13 13 22 30 1 2 169 9,924 121 RANDOLPH 1,507 928 952 865 2 2 3 3 0 0 44 4,306 122 RICHMOND 35,805 24,581 24,384 20,243 466 295 673 508 24 13 4,844 111,836 123 ROCKDALE 12,426 8,728 13,350 11,862 245 224 349 316 5 3 2,803 50,311 124 SCHLEY 336 216 928 815 5 3 6 1 0 0 28 2,338 125 SCREVEN 2,149 1,518 2,664 2,385 12 4 10 9 3 0 63 8,817 126 SEMINOLE 1,082 778 1,971 1,705 4 1 18 17 0 0 77 5,653 127 SPALDING 6,589 4,352 12,430 10,909 70 48 118 92 4 6 1,098 35,716 128 STEPHENS 813 568 6,992 6,020 36 39 29 26 3 2 150 14,678 129 STEWART 1,024 731 609 581 2 0 4 5 0 0 19 2,975 130 SUMTER 4,719 3,054 4,590 3,915 25 17 56 36 1 0 330 16,743 131 TALBOT 1,481 1,152 936 923 0 3 5 5 0 1 90 4,596 132 TALIAFERRO 433 386 300 244 1 1 0 0 0 0 23 1,388 133 TATTNALL 1,199 819 4,000 3,378 15 12 81 59 2 0 130 9,695
6/29/09 Page 3 of 4 Appendix D Sec. of State Data from June 1, 2009
A B C D E F G H I J K L M BLACK BLACK WHITE WHITE ASIA-PI ASIA-PI HISP-LT HISP-LT INDIAN INDIAN COUNTY NAME OTHER TOTAL 1 FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE 134 TAYLOR 1,099 752 1,507 1,366 7 3 8 5 0 0 69 4,816 135 TELFAIR 1,144 824 2,066 1,856 4 6 27 16 0 0 50 5,993 136 TERRELL 2,021 1,355 1,332 1,191 4 3 4 6 1 0 141 6,058 137 THOMAS 5,176 3,353 9,110 7,844 34 34 72 61 2 1 676 26,363 138 TIFT 3,218 1,992 7,451 6,243 47 34 120 119 1 1 332 19,558 139 TOOMBS 1,928 1,152 5,342 4,457 24 26 121 76 0 0 192 13,318 140 TOWNS 4 6 4,058 3,535 1 2 4 5 0 0 53 7,668 141 TREUTLEN 747 514 1,393 1,295 3 2 2 8 0 0 20 3,984 142 TROUP 6,865 4,688 13,036 11,188 60 62 74 82 1 3 933 36,992 143 TURNER 1,063 695 1,614 1,398 6 9 4 5 0 1 91 4,886 144 TWIGGS 1,462 1,239 1,724 1,663 4 4 14 3 1 0 110 6,224 145 UNION 11 14 7,177 6,363 13 4 33 11 1 0 174 13,801 146 UPSON 2,486 1,734 5,915 4,955 9 13 11 11 1 0 592 15,727 147 WALKER 708 541 18,347 15,756 23 14 53 37 3 2 1,618 37,102 148 WALTON 3,914 2,792 20,902 18,421 124 117 189 156 3 0 2,651 49,269 149 WARE 2,768 1,621 6,676 5,364 39 31 41 28 3 0 253 16,824 150 WARREN 1,231 837 775 726 4 1 2 0 1 1 43 3,621 151 WASHINGTON 3,407 2,266 3,144 2,794 8 6 14 5 1 0 118 11,763 152 WAYNE 1,452 963 6,319 5,310 18 22 48 47 2 1 439 14,621 153 WEBSTER 385 261 414 366 1 0 1 1 0 0 14 1,443 154 WHEELER 501 379 1,138 1,074 1 0 9 8 0 0 30 3,140 155 WHITE 104 82 7,395 6,558 15 19 35 35 1 0 199 14,443 156 WHITFIELD 998 855 18,618 15,927 134 142 1,394 1,621 3 0 1,445 41,137 157 WILCOX 737 458 1,600 1,437 0 1 9 14 2 0 39 4,297 158 WILKES 1,505 980 1,971 1,796 7 2 5 5 1 0 49 6,321 159 WILKINSON 1,486 1,069 1,806 1,607 4 2 4 1 1 1 43 6,024 160 WORTH 1,772 1,235 4,455 3,917 13 6 16 19 0 0 265 11,698 161 162 163 http://www.sos.ga.gov/Elections/voter_registration/DocumentDirect%20SSVRZ188.pdf 164 165 6/01/09 GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE PAGE 1 166 SSVRZ188R1 VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEM SECR OF STATE 167 ACTIVE VOTERS BY RACE/GENDER 168 WITHIN COUNTY
6/29/09 Page 4 of 4 Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) & the GALEO Latino Community Development Fund
Appendix E:
Data from January 1, 2003
June 30, 2009 Georgia Latino Vote 888.54GALEO / 888.544.2536 www.galeo.org Appendix E Sec. of State Data from Jan. 1, 2003
A B C I J K L M N Black Asian Hispanic Hispanic Female Black Male Female Asian Male Female Male Other Total 1 County Voters Voters Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters 2 APPLING 973 652 2 6 14 9 23 8896 3 ATKINSON 220 155 0 0 4 5 32 2556 4 BACON 397 260 0 0 3 0 34 5573 5 BAKER 576 419 1 1 0 0 13 2136 6 BALDWIN 3981 2450 20 21 12 7 323 17714 7 BANKS 69 71 7 2 7 8 38 6344 8 BARROW 839 585 34 24 30 22 244 17872 9 BARTOW 1731 1288 38 37 60 75 248 37696 10 BEN HILL 1258 688 0 0 1 1 46 6774 11 BERRIEN 427 269 0 0 10 7 42 6787 12 BIBB 17007 9804 70 77 58 36 529 67060 13 BLECKLEY 563 323 0 2 2 0 27 5317 14 BRANTLEY 153 112 3 0 1 2 25 7199 15 BROOKS 1372 897 0 0 1 0 45 6774 16 BRYAN 731 468 11 5 17 10 119 9246 17 BULLOCH 3021 2009 31 24 24 12 143 22340 18 BURKE 2920 1795 2 1 3 1 82 10288 19 BUTTS 1294 880 3 1 5 8 71 8893 20 CALHOUN 978 698 0 1 2 0 7 2988 21 CAMDEN 1843 1240 47 21 45 29 284 16256 22 CANDLER 563 380 7 2 29 25 8 4054 23 CARROLL 2977 1956 25 21 40 23 489 37779 24 CATOOSA 143 126 3 2 4 8 212 26170 25 CHARLTON 521 423 1 1 0 1 14 4040 26 CHATHAM 20343 12540 49 43 52 39 1562 96474 27 CHATTAHOOCHEE 471 351 3 2 15 18 80 2272 28 CHATTOOGA 475 375 7 3 5 14 24 10141 29 CHEROKEE 1059 810 70 45 124 121 1257 74314 30 CLARKE 5817 3530 113 100 86 74 634 38019 31 CLAY 671 450 0 0 0 0 12 3106 32 CLAYTON 30397 19215 107 123 152 90 3396 88012
6/29/09 Page 1 of 6 Appendix E Sec. of State Data from Jan. 1, 2003
A B C I J K L M N Black Asian Hispanic Hispanic Female Black Male Female Asian Male Female Male Other Total 1 County Voters Voters Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters 33 CLINCH 532 300 0 0 0 0 12 3106 34 COBB 30137 20691 496 445 559 504 9788 302158 35 COFFEE 2368 1584 7 2 13 15 115 14856 36 COLQUITT 1738 1059 4 0 19 4 208 14886 37 COLUMBIA 2809 2016 308 279 108 79 1092 47866 38 COOK 942 623 0 1 0 4 36 6035 39 COWETA 3586 2531 11 9 20 19 530 43784 40 CRAWFORD 743 503 0 0 2 0 21 5164 41 CRISP 1728 1052 1 0 2 0 88 8576 42 DADE 16 14 4 2 3 0 29 7118 43 DAWSON 7 1 1 0 3 5 69 8044 44 DECATUR 954 553 1 1 2 1 31 4978 45 DEKALB 90110 58297 895 1035 677 641 6569 285711 46 DODGE 1301 800 0 1 1 0 31 9640 47 DOOLY 1349 889 0 2 1 4 69 4615 48 DOUGHERTY 13121 8589 13 17 30 23 333 40598 49 DOUGLAS 4740 3144 18 14 23 17 830 41484 50 EARLY 1300 780 1 0 0 1 18 5402 51 ECHOLS 67 38 0 0 0 4 17 1510 52 EFFINGHAM 1028 730 20 9 25 29 98 16602 53 ELBERT 1436 913 1 0 1 0 41 9332 54 EMANUEL 1874 1184 2 1 3 3 58 10314 55 EVANS 863 568 0 0 1 4 36 4830 56 FANNIN 2 6 0 3 1 1 55 12141 57 FAYETTE 3184 25169 122 88 125 87 1431 51511 58 FLOYD 2720 1590 69 65 82 81 281 39255 59 FORSYTH 128 116 91 88 88 91 364 51935 60 FRANKLIN 347 194 8 6 4 3 24 8887 61 FULTON 90846 60826 202 178 164 163 11887 368188 62 GILMER 2 4 6 2 6 17 90 11859 63 GLASCOCK 52 32 0 0 0 0 2 1434
6/29/09 Page 2 of 6 Appendix E Sec. of State Data from Jan. 1, 2003
A B C I J K L M N Black Asian Hispanic Hispanic Female Black Male Female Asian Male Female Male Other Total 1 County Voters Voters Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters 64 GLYNN 3980 2517 21 22 50 29 282 32920 65 GORDON 341 240 3 1 13 18 208 18483 66 GRADY 1450 857 5 4 13 12 51 9728 67 GREENE 1731 1062 3 1 1 2 43 7902 68 GWINNETT 17881 12408 402 434 496 307 12549 241324 69 HABERSHAM 140 114 13 19 20 19 120 15294 70 HALL 2073 1341 66 50 230 238 752 53999 71 HANCOCK 2323 1692 0 0 0 0 14 5233 72 HARALSON 323 206 0 2 1 0 111 11992 73 HARRIS 1126 823 15 5 7 13 106 12730 74 HART 892 555 11 9 5 2 41 10782 75 HEARD 357 263 0 0 1 2 41 5188 76 HENRY 5817 4190 106 101 118 101 1273 63326 77 HOUSTON 5552 3791 159 90 120 93 726 46866 78 IRWIN 511 317 0 0 1 2 9 3908 79 JACKSON 563 430 15 16 16 16 141 16979 80 JASPER 788 505 0 1 1 3 20 5332 81 JEFF DAVIS 561 415 0 0 3 1 42 6690 82 JEFFERSON 2612 1575 0 0 2 1 23 8229 83 JENKINS 951 536 0 2 2 1 11 4021 84 JOHNSON 795 468 0 2 1 1 6 4595 85 JONES 1556 1069 12 13 17 9 64 11474 86 LAMAR 1172 806 1 2 1 0 50 7603 87 LANIER 407 297 0 0 0 1 25 3016 88 LAURENS 3830 2432 36 36 14 15 64 21615 89 LEE 805 612 5 4 4 4 119 10939 90 LIBERTY 4057 2332 76 39 177 113 357 14193 91 LINCOLN 804 548 2 1 3 2 3 4568 92 LONG 571 348 4 1 36 31 42 4086 93 LOWNDES 7114 4860 80 53 63 61 463 40700 94 LUMPKIN 52 40 9 6 33 19 61 9443
6/29/09 Page 3 of 6 Appendix E Sec. of State Data from Jan. 1, 2003
A B C I J K L M N Black Asian Hispanic Hispanic Female Black Male Female Asian Male Female Male Other Total 1 County Voters Voters Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters 95 MACON 1998 1365 1 7 5 9 28 5954 96 MADISON 508 340 10 7 14 6 57 12296 97 MARION 756 543 6 2 4 12 30 3851 98 MCDUFFIE 1883 1097 8 3 14 13 29 9649 99 MCINTOSH 1254 849 1 3 1 0 8 5561 100 MERIWETHER 2401 1561 0 1 1 0 54 10450 101 MILLER 373 280 1 0 0 0 13 3143 102 MITCHELL 2227 1321 8 9 8 7 40 8760 103 MONROE 1452 893 3 0 1 4 55 10411 104 MONTGOMERY 512 364 0 0 0 0 9 3795 105 MORGAN 1066 652 0 1 10 6 54 7699 106 MURRAY 24 28 0 1 21 26 180 13446 107 MUSCOGEE 18764 12330 212 107 291 215 1453 76885 108 NEWTON 3047 1824 11 7 3 28 192 21056 109 OCONEE 314 241 20 27 19 12 117 14046 110 OGLETHORPE 529 361 0 0 0 1 34 5895 111 PAULDING 1276 907 3 1 12 12 384 27307 112 PEACH 2245 1535 11 5 19 15 39 9564 113 PICKENS 54 51 2 2 6 9 85 12742 114 PIERCE 428 280 1 0 2 0 28 6881 115 PIKE 529 391 2 0 5 7 35 6864 116 POLK 1087 733 8 8 24 36 254 16216 117 PULASKI 732 457 0 0 1 0 15 4506 118 PUTNAM 1195 861 2 1 0 1 178 8902 119 QUITMAN 382 242 0 0 0 0 12 1460 120 RABUN 12 13 1 4 4 9 29 7442 121 RANDOLPH 1343 869 0 0 0 0 22 4066 122 RICHMOND 22060 14379 91 72 133 122 1561 78829 123 ROCKDALE 3649 2303 95 102 108 108 189 32948 124 SCHLEY 282 197 0 0 1 0 11 1825 125 SCREVEN 1597 1094 2 3 6 3 23 7095
6/29/09 Page 4 of 6 Appendix E Sec. of State Data from Jan. 1, 2003
A B C I J K L M N Black Asian Hispanic Hispanic Female Black Male Female Asian Male Female Male Other Total 1 County Voters Voters Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters 126 SEMINOLE 785 535 1 0 2 0 23 4707 127 SPALDING 3771 2204 14 15 23 23 138 24113 128 STEPHENS 630 419 2 1 2 0 79 12207 129 STEWART 941 704 1 0 0 0 8 2783 130 SUMTER 3860 2581 0 0 1 7 192 14771 131 TALBOT 1247 889 0 1 0 3 9 3654 132 TALIAFERRO 404 358 1 0 0 0 11 1284 133 TATTNALL 1154 829 7 4 37 37 51 9081 134 TAYLOR 1022 631 0 0 2 1 13 4226 135 TELFAIR 980 711 0 0 0 0 14 5558 136 TERRELL 1685 1018 0 1 1 2 23 5034 137 THOMAS 3470 2185 7 6 10 15 222 18788 138 TIFT 1927 1063 10 14 17 19 151 13865 139 TOOMBS 1483 873 4 7 10 8 168 11045 140 TOWNS 1 0 0 0 2 1 6 6035 141 TREUTLEN 622 388 2 0 1 4 3 3377 142 TROUP 4174 2488 1 13 4 3 206 25445 143 TURNER 832 516 1 2 0 0 23 3898 144 TWIGGS 1345 1006 3 0 3 0 23 5316 145 UNION 2 3 4 3 1 3 6 9949 146 UPSON 1923 1246 1 0 1 1 93 13243 147 WALKER 398 289 0 0 2 5 2036 18141 148 WALTON 1863 1083 21 17 28 33 446 27474 149 WARE 1972 1099 8 10 8 10 67 13931 150 WARREN 1044 614 2 0 0 0 7 3077 151 WASHINGTON 2775 1752 0 0 1 15 27 10034 152 WAYNE 1035 670 6 6 15 10 67 11388 153 WEBSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 WHEELER 363 253 0 0 1 0 6 2374 155 WHITE 97 67 4 7 7 6 38 9838 156 WHITFIELD 740 595 43 41 280 419 362 32827
6/29/09 Page 5 of 6 Appendix E Sec. of State Data from Jan. 1, 2003
A B C I J K L M N Black Asian Hispanic Hispanic Female Black Male Female Asian Male Female Male Other Total 1 County Voters Voters Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters* Voters 157 WILCOX 592 328 0 0 1 2 34 3434 158 WILKES 1297 828 0 0 1 0 16 5594 159 WILKINSON 887 586 0 0 0 1 21 4224 160 WORTH 500 363 1 0 3 2 36 5253 161 TOTALS 554759 362546 4622 4248 5322 4852 70189 3592381
6/29/09 Page 6 of 6