Latinos, Anglos, Voters, Candidates, and Voting Rights
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LATINOS, ANGLOS, VOTERS, CANDIDATES, AND VOTING RIGHTS † JONATHAN NAGLER †† R. MICHAEL ALVAREZ In this paper we contrast the demographics, political preferences, and voting behavior of Latinos and Anglos. In doing so, we focus par- ticularly on California because of the large quantity of economic, demographic, and political data concerning Latinos that are available for that state. Also, restricting ourselves to Latinos in California avoids the “problem” of cross-state diversity. We demonstrate that there is remarkable diversity among Latinos within California. Were we to add the Hispanic populations of other states to our analysis, particu- larly Cubans in Florida and Puerto Ricans in New York, we would magnify this diversity considerably. The purpose of our research is to provide suitable factual material for determining whether or not Lati- nos can constitute a “community of interest.”1 We do not offer a new theory of “community of interest” here. But we think that a commu- nity of interest must be based more on shared preferences than on po- litical outcomes (where “political outcomes” can be policy choices or candidates running for office). † Professor of Politics, New York University. †† Professor of Political Science, California Institute of Technology. Prepared for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review’s Symposium on The Law of Democracy. We thank Jonathan Steinberg and George Waters for their comments on earlier research. We also thank the participants of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review’s Symposium for their comments. The authors can be reached at [email protected] and [email protected], respectively. 1 The concept of preservation of “communities of interest” was one of three non- constitutional redistricting principles presented by the plaintiffs in Carstens v. Lamm, 543 F. Supp. 68, 74, 82 (D. Colo. 1982) (mem.). The other two were compactness and contiguity, and preservation of county and municipal boundaries. Id. The court in Carstens defined communities of interest as “including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors.” Id. at 83 n.38. In a recent manu- script, Winburn and Wagner note the vagueness of this definition: “While the courts have laid out guidelines for using communities of interest in the drawing of fair dis- tricts, the concept lacks a clear-cut definition.” Jonathan Winburn & Michael W. Wag- ner, Gerrymandering, Split Communities, and Forgotten Voters 6 (April 3, 2003), (Pa- per presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 3-5, 2003), available at http://www.indiana.edu/~iupolsci/gradcv/ wagner/web_papers_gerrymander.pdf (last accessed October 23, 2004) (393) 394 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 153: 393 In this paper we examine demographic diversity, diversity of opin- ion on issues (expressed both as votes on ballot propositions and re- sponses to survey questions), and diversity in choices of candidates. We also examine the willingness of non-Latino voters to vote for La- tino candidates. We show that California’s Latino population is very diverse—ethnically, socially, and economically. We also demonstrate that this ethnic, social, and economic diversity has a political parallel: the Latino electorate is not monolithic, and the policies Latinos sup- port are not necessarily policies that non-Latino groups unite to op- pose. This leads to the conclusion that the concept of “community of interest” is problematic with regard to Latinos in California—a con- clusion that has implications for the application of California’s voting rights precedents, as recently seen in Cano v. Davis.2 I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY IN CALIFORNIA While voting rights disputes in the United States are often associ- ated with the South, where the world was literally looked at as “Black and White,” California cannot be thought of in terms of “Black and White,” “Latino and White,” or “White and non-White.”3 In fact, Cali- fornia cannot even be thought of in terms of “Anglo, Hispanic, Asian, and Black” because there is too much diversity within each of these groups. For example, the term “Hispanic” can refer to people of completely different national origins, from different continents, and of different generations (e.g., both first-generation immigrants and second and later generations of Americans may be referred to as “Hispanic”). Similarly, in California the term “Asian” can refer to people of Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, or Cambodian origins, among others, with widely varying socioeconomic status. Thus, while 2 211 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (C.D. Cal 2002); see infra Part VII. 3 There is a vast literature on voting rights in the context of black-white relations, a literature much too large to effectively summarize here. See generally DAVID T. CANON, RACE, REDISTRICTING, AND REPRESENTATION: THE UNINTENDED CONSE- QUENCES OF BLACK MAJORITY DISTRICTS (1999) (summarizing the research literature on political representation and voting rights); BERNARD GROFMAN ET AL., MINORITY REPRESENTATION AND THE QUEST FOR VOTING EQUALITY (1992) (discussing different legal and social science explanations for changing rates of minority representation in government); J. MORGAN KOUSSER, COLORBLIND INJUSTICE: MINORITY VOTING RIGHTS AND THE UNDOING OF THE SECOND RECONSTRUCTION (1999) (examining the history of minority voting rights, with a primary focus on those of Blacks); DAVID LUBLIN, THE PARADOX OF REPRESENTATION: RACIAL GERRYMANDERING MINORITY INTERESTS IN CONGRESS (1997) (empirically examining the correlation between racial redistricting and the race and ideology of elected representatives, focusing on Blacks and Latinos). 2004] LATINOS, ANGLOS, VOTERS 395 we argue that it is a conceptual mistake to think of Californians pri- marily in racial and ethnic terms, we understand that such analyses are frequently offered in voting rights cases. Despite what is asserted in voting rights cases, the evidence does not support such a simple- minded approach to a state in which current political life is animated by a complex web of coalition building among diverse groups, and in which alliances are based on interests that regularly transcend race and ethnicity.4 The diversity of the non-White population of California greatly complicates any analysis of racial and ethnic politics in the state. Given the diversity of California, which we document in this Article, the assumption that political competition, representation, or policy making results from a conflict between Whites and non-Whites is in- correct. It is similarly incorrect to view politics in California as the re- sult of a Latino versus non-Latino conflict, an Asian versus non-Asian conflict, or a Black versus non-Black conflict. An analysis of data from the 2000 Census shows that California is a multiethnic state.5 In Table 1 we document, with data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the change in the racial composition of California’s non-Hispanic population from 1990 to 2000. In 2000, Whites num- bered 15,816,790, or 69% of California’s total non-Hispanic popula- tion of 22,905,092; however, the White non-Hispanic population in California fell by 7% between 1990 and 2000. The increase in Cali- fornia’s non-Hispanic population was produced by increases in the Black non-Hispanic population (increasing 4% to 2,181,926 persons), and by increases in the Asian non-Hispanic population (increasing 38% to 3,752,596). California’s non-Hispanic population is becoming more Asian.6 4 Coalitions spanning ethnic and racial divisions have been studied; however, the exact extent to which they occur, and the conditions under which they are possible, are clearly understudied social and political phenomena. For examples of cross-racial or cross-ethnic coalitions in California, see RAPHAEL J. SONENSHEIN, POLITICS IN BLACK AND WHITE: RACE AND POWER IN LOS ANGELES (1993) (analyzing “crossover” politics and race relations in Los Angeles); Leland Saito, Asian Americans and Latinos in San Gabriel Valley, California: Ethnic Political Cooperation and Redistricting, 1990-92, 19 AMERASIA J. 55 (1993) (discussing political cooperation between Asian-Americans and Latinos in the San Gabriel Valley). 5 Cf. A PORTRAIT OF RACE AND ETHNICITY IN CALIFORNIA: AN ASSESSMENT OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC WELL-BEING (Belinda I. Reyes ed., 2001) [hereinafter PORTRAIT OF RACE] (presenting a broad analysis of California’s demographics, geo- graphic diversity, socioeconomic differences, and political trends that largely parallels the analysis in this Article). 6 The figures given above for Blacks, Whites and Asians represent the numbers of 396 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 153: 393 Table 1: Non-Hispanic Race and Ethnicity in California and Los Angeles County, 1990-2000 19907 20008 Change % Change White 17,029,126 15,816,790 -1,212,336 -7.12 Black 2,092,446 2,181,926 89,480 4.28 American Indian, 184,065 178,984 -5,081 -2.76 Alaska Native Asian or Pacific Islander 2,710,353 3,752,596 1,042,243 38.45 Other 56,093 71,681 15,588 27.79 Two or More Races NA 903,115 NA NA Total 22,072,083 22,905,092 833,009 3.77 Table 2 provides a detailed look at the national origin composi- tion of the Hispanic population in California. Using the detailed in- formation on Hispanic origin available from the 2000 Census, we give the number of residents in most major Hispanic national origin groups. Beginning with our profile of the California Hispanic popula- tion, we see that Mexicans constitute a large share (77%) of the total Hispanic population in California. Other national origin categories that have significant shares of the Hispanic population statewide are “other” Hispanics (14.2%), Salvadorans (2.5%), Guatemalans (1.3%), and Puerto Ricans (1.3%). Thus, before proceeding further, we note that the ethnic heterogeneity of Hispanics is substantial, especially for the population of a single state. Census respondents who identified themselves as members of only one race. 7 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, CENSUS 1990 SUMMARY FILE 1 (SF1) (100-Percent Data), at tbl.P010, available at http://factfinder.census.gov (Hispanic Origin by Race) (last ac- cessed Oct.