CHANGE THE RULES, SUPPRESS THE VOTE: USING ELECTION

TIMING TO DISENFRANCHISE STUDENT VOTERS, A CASE

STUDY OF 2011’S MEASURE A IN CHICO, CALIFORNIA

______

A Thesis

Presented

To the Faculty of

California State University, Chico

______

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

Political Science

______

By

©Eleanor A. Cameron-Anderson 2013

Spring 2013

CHANGE THE RULES, SUPPRESS THE VOTE: USING ELECTION

TIMING TO DISENFRANCHISE STUDENT VOTERS, A CASE

STUDY OF 2011’S MEASURE A IN CHICO, CA

A Thesis

by

Eleanor A. Cameron-Anderson

Spring 2013

APPROVED BY THE DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND VICE PROVOST FOR RESEARCH:

______Eun K. Park, Ph.D.

APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:

______Matthew O. Thomas, Ph.D. Diana Dwyre, Ph.D., Chair Graduate Coordinator

______Robert Stanley, Ph.D.

______Lori M. Weber, Ph.D.

PUBLICATION RIGHTS

No portion of this thesis may be reprinted or reproduced in any manner unacceptable to the usual copyright restrictions without written permission of the author.

iii DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my husband, John Anderson and my mother,

Carolyn Cameron, in gratitude for their unwavering support.

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people I need to thank for the support and encouragement in the production of this thesis. First, I want to give thanks to my great team of thesis advisers: Prof. Diana Dwyre, who pushed me into thinking about how the rules affect outcomes; Prof. Robert Stanley, who gave me great advice and legal resources; and to Prof. Lori Weber who reminded me that not all studies have to be quantitative. I also want to thank the faculty and staff of the Political

Science Department for putting up with me, and with a special thanks to Tami

Harder- you are missed.

A special thank you goes to Bob Mulholland, for making available his treasure trove of election records, maps, and unpublished papers on Butte County elections. This case study would not have been complete with out your assistance.

Also to Marisa Brower, the Elections Project Coordinator at the Butte County Office of Elections for answering my questions.

Finally, I would like to thank the Office of Graduate Studies and the

Graduate Equity Fellowship Program for funding this research.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE Publication rights ………………………………………………………………………………………… iii

Dedication …………………………………………………………………………………………………… iv

Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………………… v

List of Table ………………………………………………………………………………………………… viii

List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ix

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. x

CHAPTER

I. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… 1

Making the Case ……………………………………………………………………… 1 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………… 2 Background …………………………………………………………………………….. 3 Theoretical Basis ……………………………………………………………………... 4 Why a Case Study……………………………………………………………………… 6 Overview of Thesis…………………………………………………………………… 8

II. Literature Review …………………………………………………………………………… 13

On Democracy ..………………………………………………………………………. 13 Voting and Democracy ……………………………………………………………. 16 Voter Suppression vs. Voter Enfranchisement …………………………. 18 The Youth Vote ………………………………………………………………………. 22 Election Timing Effects on Voter Turnout ………………………………… 27

vi CHAPTER PAGE

III. The Case Study……………………………………………………………………………… 35

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 35 A Questionable Reputation……………………………………………………… 36 The City and The College…………………………………………………………. 44 Measure A………………………………………………………………………………. 54

IV. Methodology and Data……………………………………………………………………. 58

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 58 Test of Sub-Hypotheses…………………………………………………………… 59 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………… 80

V. Recommendations and Conclusion…………………………………………………… 81

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 81 Discussion of Findings…………………………………………………………….. 82 Recommendations and Conclusion………………………………………….. 85

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 88

Appendices

A. Table: Letters-to-the-Editor on Measure A………………………………………. 98 B. Map: City of Chico Special Election Precinct Map……………………………… 106 C. Table: Voter Precinct, Registration by Party…………………………………….. 108

vii LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Intercession Course Registration, 2010-2013…………………………………… 64

2. Top Three Candidates, Chico City Council Elections, November 2010 and Vote on Measure A June 2011……………………………………… 70

3. Demographic Characteristics of Voter Precincts, Ranked by Median Household Income, and Vote For Measure A…………………… 76

viii TABLE OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. Percentage of Turnout in All City of Chico Elections, 2000-2012………………………………………………………..…….… 29

2. Percentage of Turnout in City of Chico Elections, Primary and General Only……………………………………………………….… 30

3. Change in Population Demographics, City of Chico….………………………. 61

4. Change in Population Demographics, CSU Chico……….………………….….. 62

5. Change in Percent Minority Student Enrollment at CSU Chico……..…… 63

6. Republican Party Registration Effects on the Vote for Measure A……… 67

7. Democratic Party Registration Effects on the Vote for Measure A……… 68

ix ABSTRACT

CHANGE THE RULES, SUPPRESS THE VOTE: USING ELECTION

TIMING TO DISENFRANCHISE STUDENT VOTERS, A CASE

STUDY OF 2011’S MEASURE A IN CHICO, CALIFORNIA

by

© Eleanor A. Cameron-Anderson 2013

Master of Arts in Political Science

California State University, Chico

Spring 2013

There is a perception that university students have an undue influence upon local elections. This thesis studies the history and attitudes of a community with a university in its boundaries while attempting to answer the question: Do communities with a university in their boundaries encourage attempts to suppress student-age voter participation? This thesis breaks the question down into four sub- hypotheses and finds an affirmative relationship between the hypotheses and student-age voter suppression efforts.

x CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Making the Case

University students may be one of the most under represented groups at the local political level. Yet there seems to be a perception that university students have an undue influence upon local elections. This notion—that university students are taking over local governments—started spreading not long after 18 to 20 year-olds were granted the right to vote in 1972. As the literature review will show, the attitude that a newly enfranchised group will overwhelm the preferences of local voters, has been transferred from group to group as the right to vote has been expanded.

The attitudes towards voting, and especially who gets to vote, are complicated by the history of voting rights in our nation. Since our founding, there have been conflicts over the franchise. At first voting was seen as a privilege reserved to the landed gentry. It took one hundred years for voting to become a right worthy of incorporating into the Constitution by amendment. It was not until the 20th century that the right to vote was extended to all adults 18 and over, without regard to race or gender.

1 2

The last to be group granted voting rights was 18 to 20 year-olds in 1972. Since then, laws impeding ballot access by university students have been passed, challenged in court, and overturned. However, old laws declared unconstitutional have been replaced in some areas with new attempts to discourage, impede or disenfranchise university student aged voters in the communities where they go to school. As the literature review will show, student voters are a neglected group in the literature on disenfranchisement

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this thesis is to show the many factors that characterize efforts to disenfranchise student voters. These factors, I argue, will form the basis for a general theory that can be applied to other communities with university populations. This analysis will delve into a recent attempt by local level interests to change election rules in order to influence who turns out to vote. The attempt, while unsuccessful, was the most recent effort by citizens in this college community to challenge students’ access to the ballot.

Do communities with a university in their boundaries encourage attempts to suppress student-age voter participation in a local election? I argue that communities that do attempt to suppress student voter turnout will have characteristics in common: college towns with significant racial, ethnic, and ideological differences between student and non- student residents are more likely to see efforts to suppress student voting in local elections.

In this thesis, I use the 2011 attempt to move the Chico, California City Council election to

June as a case study to test this general theory.

I will test a set of hypotheses that will help explain why these communities attempt to disenfranchise or suppress the college student vote. I contend that communities who do make these attempts will have the following characteristics: 1) the community-at- 3 large will be more conservative, showing a greater preference for political candidates that identify as conservative while student voters will show a preference for candidates that identify as liberal; 2) the community-at-large will be less diverse than the student population; 3) university students will make up a critical percentage of the total city population; 4) the university population leaves the community during significant breaks in the academic calendar, such as the summer break.

Background

On Tuesday, June 7, 2011, the voters of Chico, California rejected a ballot measure, Measure A, by a margin of 2 to 1 (Siino 2011). The measure proposed to move the

Chico City Council election from November to June. While the language of the measure seemed rather benign, its passage could have effectively driven down voter turnout for the

Chico City Council elections. According to the ballot argument in favor of the measure, moving the election was about “accountability” (Voter’s Booklet: Measures, Analysis, and

Arguments 2011). Stephanie Tabor, the author of the measure, stated: “The intent of this measure is to increase voter participation in City and County elections in the non-partisan political environment created by the new California Open Primary” (ibid.). And yet, voter participation has actually been lower during past June primary elections than during the

November general election. The Butte County Office of Elections’ report for the June 2010 primary election shows 16,905 ballots cast by residents within the city (Butte County

Clerk-Recorder 2010a). The report for the November 2010 general election shows 28,307 ballots were cast by voters living in the City of Chico (Butte County Clerk-Recorder 2010b).

That is a difference of 11,402 votes, which is not an insignificant number of voters. 4

Whatever the stated motives of Measure A’s proponents were, there was a strong debate swirling around the issue of whether or not this specific ballot measure was intended to reduce or suppress the votes of university students, faculty, and staff who may leave the community during the summer months. This debate played out at Chico City

Council meetings, in letters-to-the editor, and on local radio. A debate about who might be considered a legitimate member of the Chico community was also stirred up by this ballot measure, raising questions of who should be ‘entitled’ to vote in local elections, and what makes for a legitimate electoral process.

Theoretical Basis

Such questions over voting and electoral legitimacy are as old as the idea of the

United States. One measure of a healthy democracy is fair access to the voting booth and a high level of participation of eligible voters in the election process. I argue that when voter turnout is suppressed by any means, electoral legitimacy is called into question.

According to Robert A. Dahl, there is an assumption that “democracy must guarantee virtually every adult citizen the right to vote… a push toward democratic participation develops out of what we might call the logic of equality” (Dahl 1998, 3, 10).

Suppressing the turnout of targeted groups can lead to a lack of representation of the out- group in federal, state and local government. We have seen this happen to African-

Americans in the Jim Crow era South, the Chinese and Japanese in California, and women throughout the nation up to the mid-1910s (Keyssar 2000; O’Brien 2003). The debate stirred by Measure A revealed that there are members of the community who view students as the out-group or as undesirable. For example Appendix A features letters published by the local daily newspaper, the Chico Enterprise-Record, leading up to the vote 5 on Measure A. The appendix shows letter writers who supported the measure expressed negative attitudes towards student voters, including some who called students “spoiled,”

“uninvolved transients,” and “puppets.” Others writing in support of the measure equated allowing students to vote in local elections to stealing an election and to disenfranchising local voters.

All of this brings me back to my original question: do communities with a university in their boundaries encourage attempts to suppress student-age voter participation in local elections? Chico is not the first or the only community to attempt to suppress the voter turnout of college or university students. Previous attempts have included the voter registrars in various states informing students they could lose their financial aid or could not be claimed as dependants on their parents’ income taxes if they registered to vote in their college town (Fitzpatrick 2008). In New Hampshire, the state

House Speaker supported legislation that would have prohibited students from voting in their college town, in spite of a Supreme Court ruling that students do have that right (Petri

2011; Fitzpatrick 2008; Dunn v. Blumstien, 405 U.S. 330 [1972]).

Niemi, Hanmer, and Jackson (2009) looked at some communities that attempted to suppress student voter turnout by making registration more difficult. They examined the conditions students face when they attempted to register to vote in various state and local jurisdictions. They found evidence of the disenfranchisement (both intentional and circumstantial) or suppression of student aged voter registration in several states. They also found inconsistency within states (from county to county) in the application of voter registration laws (Neimi, Hanmer, and Jackson 2009). However, they did not look deeper into the political or social make up of each jurisdiction. I argue that the community- 6 university relationship is an important factor in areas where the attempts at student voter suppression are made. I argue that there will be common traits found in jurisdictions that attempt to suppress student voter turnout, and, once these traits are identified, we can then look for possible flashpoints for suppression. These traits can be found by looking at the factors that characterize the historical, political, and social dynamics of the university and the surrounding community, such as the racial and ideological differences between students and community members.

Why a Case Study

The intent of this study is to add to our understanding of the causes of attempted student voter suppression. Why a case study? One reason for choosing a case study over other methods is because the research questions will explore how and why an event occurred. “The more that your questions seek to explain some present circumstance… the more that the case study method will be relevant” (Yin 2009, 4). With that in mind, the case study is the best choice for developing theories about why a group within a city attempted to change the voting rules when it did. What was it that can explain the desire to change the rules regarding when voting occurred at this time? I aim to create generalized theories about why this occurred in Chico in 2010-2011, so that these theories may be useful for analyzing similar attempts in other locations and perhaps predicting where we might expect to find such efforts to depress student voting.

As I show in the case study, attempts to suppress voter turnout among student voters is not something new, not even to the city of Chico. Chico is a community with a population of 86,187 (as of the 2010 census) and a current student population of 14,766,

(as reported on the 2011-2012 Chico State Common Data Set). I chose to use Chico as a 7 case study for four reasons: 1) the effort to suppress student voter turnout was recent, within the past two years; 2) the proponents of the measure were open about their goal— to elect more conservatives to the city council and to keep students from the polls.

Supporters of the measure stated, in letters and verbally, that university students should not be voting in local elections; 3) the selected method of attaining that goal—moving the city council election to June when most students are not in town—would result in reduced voter turnout among certain voters; 4) the community has a history of hostility towards students’ rights to vote in local elections. Measure A was not the first time residents in the city challenged students right to cast ballots in local elections.

In 1983, the Butte County Grand Jury began investigating allegations of voter registration fraud because of allegations reported in Santa Cruz County. It was alleged that university students attending college in Santa Cruz County were also registered to vote in another county, and these allegations led to the Butte County Grand Jury investigation of the possibility of double registration by CSU Chico students and Butte Community College students (Butte County Grand Jury, 1983-1984).

Chico is uniquely positioned to be a case study. In a way, the city of Chico and

California State University, Chico have “grown up” together. Chico was founded in the

1860s, by General John Bidwell, and expanded rapidly. In the 1880s, John Bidwell and several other community leaders successfully lobbied the state legislature for Chico to be the site of a teacher’s college. In 1887, Chico State Normal School was opened. After 125 years of coexistence, one would think that city residents would accept the presence of the student population. However, over the decades there have been many clashes between town and gown over such matters as university “outsiders” interfering in “local” affairs 8

(Lowry 1965), campus growth, student behavior (riots of the mid-1980s and early 1990s), and impacts upon public safety agencies on what have become the drinking holidays: Labor

Day, Halloween, St. Patrick’s Day, and Cesar Chavez Day.

Overview of the Thesis

In the next chapter, I present a review of the relevant scholarly work. For example, what does it take to make democracy function and where does voting fit into it? If the purpose of a democracy is to provide good governance to all citizens, then what does our history of voting and voter suppression have to tell us about the quality of our democracy? I will also address the more basic question of why parties or interests would want to suppress voter turnout. Studies have shown voter suppression can be an effective way of manipulating election outcomes (Berry and Greene 2010; Dunne, Reed and

Wilbanks 1997; Hajnal and Trounstine 2005). By targeting selected voting groups, a political party might gain an advantage. Another important question to examine in the scholarly literature is: How are votes suppressed? Voting rights groups have reported efforts at intimidation, registration barriers, and vote caging (House Committee 2008).

Vote caging entails sending out non-forwarding post cards to a targeted neighborhood, typically a minority neighborhood. When post cards are returned to the sender, those names are compiled on a list of voters to challenge at the polls (ibid.). The research shows that the techniques used to suppress voter turnout have gone from the overt to the subtle.

In Chapter 2, I give an overview of the history and politics of “student voting”

(Notes 1971). Although the passage of the 27th Amendment in 1972 expanded the voting age to those over 18 year-old (down from 21), the objections raised about younger voters 9 have focused primarily on university students. There does not appear to be a concern about non-student 18 to 20 year-olds voting.

In Chapter 2 I also will discuss research on the use of the timing of elections to reduce or increase voter turnout in other communities. The study of election timing has shown that when elections are held will also have an effect on turnout (Berry and Greene

2010; Flannigan and Zingale 2006; Hajnal and Trounstine 2005; Rosenstone and Hansen

2003). Some of the works focus on manipulating election timing and turnout in order to obtain a desired policy outcome, such as passing school bonds (Berry and Gersen 2010;

Anzia 2009; Dunne, Reed and Wilbanks 1997). These studies, I argue, support my argument that the attempt to change Chico’s city council elections to June could have had the desired outcome sought by Measure A’s proponents.

I present the case study in Chapter 3. An overview of the history of the city and the university will show that relations between “town and gown” have not always been mutually supportive (Lowry 1965). How have the demographics of the city and the university changed over time? Is there a significant difference between the university and the community-at-large that could explain some of the hostility towards student voting?

The answers to these questions can be found by looking at the demographic and voting patterns of the city population and the university population presented in Chapter 4. I also explain the data used to test my hypotheses in Chapter 4, along with the data analysis and findings.

I will end with a summary of my findings and discussion of future research in

Chapter 5. My analysis of the Chico case study offers a theoretical approach to evaluating whether some college towns are particularly inclined to attempt to suppress student 10 voting. I offer suggestions for research in university communities, which I expect will provide further evidence to support the theory. In addition, this chapter will also present policy solutions that could assist state and local governments respond to future efforts to suppress student voter turnout.

Making the case for a general theory that can be applied across multiple jurisdictions has its challenges. First and foremost is the fact that voting laws cross multiple levels of government: national, state, and local. Congress has authority over federal elections but not state or local elections. However, when Congress does take action it can result in changes at the state level, as shall be seen in more detail in Chapter 2. The states establish standards for election administration, set the timetable for voting for state office, and can change the timing of presidential party primaries. States then pass on the administration of elections to the county governments. The counties then are the primary mechanism for voter registration, smooth operation of elections, keeping accurate records of election results, and establishing voting precincts.

The second challenge is in identifying the nature of the attempts to squash voter participation. Attempts to suppress voter participation can be thought of as either trying to avoid or evade the law to out right defiance of the law (Stanley 2011). Finally, challenges to voter participation are becoming both more overt, such as the recent attmpt in New

Hampshire to outlaw students ability to vote in the communities where they go to school

(Rolland 2011b) and more covert through the rise in voter ID laws and election

“watchdogs” (Carney 2010).

The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish or alter laws governing elections of federal office holders, further each “House shall be the judge of 11 the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members” (Article 1, sections 4 and 5).

Using this power, Congress passed the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth and Twenty- sixth Amendments extending voting rights to previously disenfranchised groups and remove financial barriers to voting. With each change, Congress reserved the power to enforce the protections through legislation. In 1965, Congress flexed its legislative muscle with the passage of the Voting Rights Act. In the 1990s, Congress again exercised its authority with the passage of the National Voter Registration Act. Both of these acts of

Congress are currently under attack in the courts, with their futures awaiting rulings from the Supreme Court. This is significant because the court will be determining the fate of the most important tool—section 5 of the Voting Rights Act—used to keep access to the polls open to everyone.

States also exert influence over voter registration and ballot access. States are tasked with the responsibility of administering and overseeing elections, however most delegate this to county officials. Unless covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires southern states and other selected counties that have a history of discriminating against minority voters, states are free to make changes that affect ease of registration and ballot access.

The multiple levels of jurisdiction complicate classifying attempts to suppress voter participation. In the case presented in this study, the attempt was made at the local

(city) level and led by local citizens. However attempts to curtail the voting of university students have been made at county and state levels as well (Rowland 2011a and 2011b).

When actions to suppress voter turnout crop up, it must also be determined if the actions 12 are deliberate attempts to evade the law allowing students to vote in the community where they go to school, or if the actions were taken in ignorance of the law.

Finally, attempts at suppressing student turnout are becoming both more overt and more covert. The more overt attempts come in the form of legal threats, such as the investigation of lawfully registered voters (Rowland 2011a), and in the form of state legislatures’ attempts to discriminate through law—such as New Hampshire’s House Bill

176, which would prohibit students and members of the military from voting in the communities where they go to school or are stationed (Rowland 2011b). Covert attempts can come in the form of voter identification laws, many of which prohibit the use of university IDs, or through more insidious means, which will be explored in the literature review, which I present in the next chapter.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

On Democracy

What does it take to make democracy function? Who should be allowed to

participate in a democracy? Why do individuals who profess to believe in

democracy seek to limit participation? In this literature review I will look at how

scholars have answered these questions, in addition to questions about the rights of

voters, the expansion of the franchise, and the attempts made to prevent various

groups from casting a ballot, both past and present. For example: can changing the

timing of an election be used to change the ideological make up of the electorate?

According to at least one scholar, the answer is yes (see Anzia 2009).

For over twenty-five centuries the rights to engage fully in political life were restricted to a minority of adults: “Democratic government was government by males only—and not all of them” (Dahl 1998, 90). As Dahl wrote in 2006, “It was not until the twentieth century that in both theory and practice democracy came to require that the rights to engage fully in political life must be extended, with very few if any exceptions, to the entire population of adults permanently residing in a country” (Dahl 2006, 90).

A democratic government gets its legitimacy from the consent of the

13 14

people and the legitimacy of the officeholders is established by the means through which they gain office (Flanigan and Zingale 2006, 15). Democracy is a promise of political equality and on that promise we assume “democracy must guarantee every adult citizen the right to vote” (Dahl 1998, 3). Democracy guarantees its citizens a number of fundamental rights. In order for a government to be truly democratic citizens must actually be able to use their rights: “The rights must be effectively enforced and effectively available to citizens in practice” (Dahl 1998, 49). Dahl points out that the guarantee and use of those rights are necessary in order to be politically equal. To deny or infringe on the rights granted in a democratic system would harm that system. As Dahl explains it:

By harming a democratic system, these denials or infringements on necessary rights would harm political equality… If majority rule is justified only as a means of achieving political equality, the principle of majority rule cannot reasonably justify actions that inflict harm on rights necessary to a democratic system. (Dahl 2006, 16)

Dahl also reminds us that democracy helps people protect their own fundamental interests, whether those interests are economic in nature or in a less tangible form. In order to protect those interests a large-scale democracy requires six elements: 1) Elected officials; 2) Free, fair and frequent elections; 3)Freedom of expression; 4)Alternative forms of information; 5)Associational autonomy, and

6)Inclusive citizenship (Dahl 1998, 85). The first two points are inextricably linked: our elected officials are chosen in freely held and fairly conducted elections. No adult permanently residing in the country, Dahl continues, can be denied the rights 15

that are available to others, including the right to vote in the election of officials

(ibid.). Dahl is very clear on what the consequences can be for those left out:

[E]ven if you are included in the electorate of a democratic state you cannot be certain that all your interests will be adequately protected; but if you are excluded you can be pretty sure that your interests will be seriously injured by neglect or outright damage. (Dahl 1998, 53)

According to Dahl “certain basic aspects of human nature and human society prevent us from ever fully achieving complete political equality among the citizens of a democratic country” (Dahl 2006, ix). According to Flannigan and

Zingale, a democracy is supposed to support respect for the rights of the minority and therefore “they should have some sense of their rights and obligations to participate in the political process, at a minimum through exercising the right to vote” (2006, 14). They argue that political culture supports or undermines the political processes and institutions (ibid.).

Full inclusion means the states must allow all persons subject to the laws of the state to participate in elections. Since our democracy is generally based on the principle of majority rule, then prohibiting select groups from participating in the electoral process delegitimizes the results because not every citizen was allowed to participate. Student voters are subject to the laws of the states and communities where they live during the academic year, therefore preventing their participation in local elections delegitimizes the process and the results of local elections.

By Dahl’s standards, any measure that restricts the right of university students to vote in local elections violates their ability to fully participate in the 16

democratic process. However, as Keyssar points out, “Americans of both parties have sometimes rejected democratic values or preferred partisan advantage to fair democratic processes” (Keyssar 2012, A19). But, Dahl states: “When a demos ceases to believe that the rights necessary to democracy are desirable, their democracy will soon become an oligarchy or tyranny” (Dahl 2006, 17). One cannot both believe in the desirability of a democracy and also support changes that would impair or destroy democracy (ibid.). That behavior does not lead to electoral legitimacy, but behaving in ways that do reinforce democratic values increases electoral legitimacy.

As Flanigan and Zingale remind us: “if the public in a democratic system believes in democratic values it will support leaders who come to office through democratic elections and govern according to democratic principles” (2006, 15).

Voting and Democracy

If a democracy is “rule by the people,” then one issue needs to be resolved: who are “the people” and who should be entitled to vote and participate in governing a democratic association (Dahl 1970, 45)? The vital element in democracy is the right of all adults to participate in the process (Dahl 1988). The rights that are necessary elements in democratic political institutions include the right to vote and to have their votes counted fairly (Dahl 1998, 48). It is important to note that it has been left up to the courts to sort out what “the right to vote” means

(Gerstman 2005, 121). “Americans generally take for granted that ours is the very model of a democracy… At the core of this self-congratulation is the belief that the right to vote is firmly established here” (Piven and Cloward 2000, 2-3). Yet, “…our 17

nation’s founding fathers were ambivalent about democracy and popular empowerment” (Gerstmann 2005, 120). Extending the franchise to the general population was the subject of great debate before and as the Constitution was drafted. As Keyssar writes: “Challenges to the traditional class restraints on suffrage were critical ingredients on the democratic… thrust of the revolution… The conflict over the franchise that erupted during the revolution involved—as such conflicts always would—both interests and ideas” (2000, 8). The language of the revolution, especially that idea that all men are created equal, led to disagreements over who should or could vote.

Voting, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, was restricted to adult men who owned property. The property qualification was based upon two justifications: 1) men who possessed property had a stake in society, and 2) property owners had “sufficient independence” to warrant having a voice in government: “…[T]he ballot was not to be entrusted to those who were economically dependent, because they could be too easily controlled or manipulated by others” (ibid., 5).

The final Constitution presented for ratification did not grant anyone the right to vote. Article 1, section 4 does give Congress the authority to set the time, place and manner of elections, but does not address who is eligible to vote in national, state or local elections. “Conservative delegates among the framers… had feared that if ordinary people were given ready access to power they would bring about policies contrary to the views and interests of the more privileged classes…” 18

(Dahl 2003, 24). This left in place the exclusion of women, African-Americans and

Native Americans, as well as those men who did not own property. Because “[T]he constitution failed to guarantee the right of suffrage, leaving the qualifications of suffrage to the states” (ibid., 16). Dahl is very clear when he states: “the fundamental interests of adults who are denied opportunities to participate in governing will not be adequately protected and advanced by those who govern” (Dahl 1998, 77).

Exclusion from the voting booth results in inadequate protections of and inadequate considerations for the rights of the excluded (Keyssar 2000).

Voter Suppression vs. Voter Enfranchisment

As E.E. Schattschneider put it in 1960, “Voting is not a strenuous form of activity, but it is apparently beyond the level of performance of four out of every ten adults” (Schattschneider 1960, 97). His stark observation conveys the idea that everyone who is legally eligible to vote does not face barriers to casting a ballot. The reality has been that barriers to the franchise have been extended and contracted through the history of the nation. The patchwork of exclusions created by voting restrictions in various states at the time the Constitution was adopted, allowed for selective disenfranchisement. Some scholars argue that, due to the localized nature of election administration, such selective disenfranchisement can occur today

(Schier 2000; Ewald 2009; and Streb 2011).

As Keyssar points out, voting was restricted to propertied men during the early formation of the nation. In addition to property and residency requirements, additional state restrictions barred women from voting because they were 19

considered to be dependent upon adult men (fathers and husbands) and were also considered to be too delicate to engage in politics (Keyssar 2000, 5). In some of the pre-civil war states, freed African-American men or American-Indian men could vote, but those states were not in the South. Some of the states also implemented religious restrictions. For example, in Massachusetts, only members of the

Congregational Church could vote. Catholics and Jews were also disenfranchised during this period: five states barred Catholics from voting, and four barred Jews from voting (Keyssar 2000, 5-6).

The property ownership restriction became a problem as the economic base of the nation evolved. Property qualifications were eliminated and replaced with taxpayer qualifications, which allowed more “white males over twenty-one years of age” to vote (O’Brian 2008, 838). O’Brien, a legal scholar, gives credit to the rise of political parties for the slowly expanding franchise (ibid). It was under the presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) that the franchise was first loosened up, although not by much (O’Brien 2008, 838). Jackson lobbied the states, getting them to drop property requirements because Congress would not take that action at the federal level, which would cover all the states (Dwyre 2012).

The franchise was greatly expanded to include more men in the period between 1790 and 1850, through the actions of the states and territories, and not through congressional action (Keyssar 2000, 33-42). What occurred to make such changes possible? Why expand the right to vote now? According to Keyssar this was a period of cultural and economic changes, including “significant changes in the 20

social structure and composition of the population”, the belief that the “interests of the enfranchised could be served by broadening the franchise”, and “the formation of broadly based political parties that competed systematically for votes” (Keyssar

2000, 34). It was the influence of these three conditions that lead to the expansion of the franchise to the previously disenfranchised.

Opponents of expanding the franchise to the unpropertied were convinced chaos would ensue. However, the onslaught of the unruly masses, ready to seize the property of the landed gentry that was expected by the Federalists, did not materialize: “…when American citizens were endowed with the rights and opportunities to support demagogues and rabble rousers, they chose instead to support law, orderly government and property rights” (Dahl 2003, 25).

The development of the women’s suffrage movement occurred during this period of a slightly expanding—but still mostly white, still male, still 21 and over—franchise (Keyssar 2000; O’Brien 2008, 838). For a period of about twenty years, the women’s suffrage movement enjoyed the support of abolitionists. That confederation fell apart after the Civil War, with the prospect that women would be ignored in the new amendments to the Constitution (Keyssar 2000, 176-177). The

Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, “disheartened suffragists” by undercutting

“the claims of women by adding the word male to its path-breaking guarantee of political rights” that guaranteed the due process and equal protection of the laws

(ibid., 177). 21

The passage and ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, according to Keyssar, “decisively severed” the causes of African-American suffrage from women’s suffrage as it declared the right to vote for former slaves and all races but not for women (ibid., 179). Also, it is important to note that it was not until the adoption of this amendment that “the words right to vote were penned into the nation’s constitution for the first time” (ibid., 104). However, at the time that right still applied only to men.

After failing in Congress during the reconstruction period, women’s suffrage advocates turned to the courts, however those efforts did not prove successful. In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall (88 U.S.) 162 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not confer the right to vote upon anyone (O’Brien

2008, 839). It was not until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920 that women were granted the right to vote in national elections and in all states (O’Brien

2008, 839).

As this review accentuates, voting rights have been selectively expanded to include or contracted to exclude certain groups at various times.

Expansion of the right to vote was at times accompanied by a concern that the newly enfranchised would undermine the power or threaten the interests of those with property. The last extension of voting rights occurred in 1972 with the passage of the 26th Amendment granting voting rights to adults aged 18 to 20. However, as the next section will show, the granting of rights did not always lead to an easy exercising of those rights. 22

The Youth Vote

Proposals for lowering the voting age to 18 had been considered

“after every major war, on the grounds that men who were old enough to fight for their country were old enough to participate in its political decisions” (Keyssar

2000, 150), and a total of “86 joint resolutions, and one bill, to grant voting rights to eighteen-year-olds” were introduced in Congress between 1941 and 1967 (Roth

1971, 85). It was not until 1972 (and the uproar over the Vietnam War) that the 26th

Amendment passed and was ratified by the states (ibid.). The speed of the amendment’s adoption was surprising to some political scientists:

The uprising of the young on campus and in the streets had stirred some concern but not enough to make action imminent. Then the dam broke…The approval of three-fourths of the states was obtained in three months and seven days. (Roth 1971, 84)

Roth argues that questions about the effects of expanding the franchise were never fully considered by advocates or opponents (Roth 1971, 84). One of those effects rested on decisions made by state and local officials. These officials had to decide if college students could register and vote where they went to college, and in some college towns, students outnumbered permanent residents (Brown and

Pluta-Brown 2004, 57). This became a source of concern for the community-at- large:

Residents feared higher taxes if student voters passed expensive bond issues or elected free-spending city councils and school boards, and Republicans worried that Democratically inclined young people would end their party’s dominance in certain communities. (Brown and Pluta-Brown, 2004, 57)

23

The reaction was to erect barriers to prevent students from exercising their new right. There was a “substantial sentiment in favor of prohibiting students from gaining residence in the communities where they attended college” (Keyssar 2000,

149).

The early barriers established by state and local officials included residency requirements, dependency tests, and also came in the form of exclusionary court rulings. The state of New York moved to suppress student voters by toughening residency requirements (Columbia Law Review 1972, 163). Since

1904, in Pope v. Williams the Supreme Court had allowed states to impose residency requirements on voters (Keyssar 2000, 147). Those restrictions included prohibiting transients and those newly moved from voting in elections (ibid.).

Sometimes even those individuals who had been living in a community found themselves barred from the polls. In the 1880s, there was an “accepted legal notion that sheer physical presence in a community for a specified length of time was not sufficient for a person to be considered a resident” (ibid.). The resident had to intend to stay in the community “for what the courts came to describe as ‘an indefinite period’” (ibid.). It was these precedents that state and local governments may have turned to when establishing rules for registering student voters. It was not until the 1960s and 1970s that a string of rulings by the Supreme Court removed most of the barriers that served to restrict voter registration of individuals the states had classified as transient when it came to voting, such as college students. 24

The string of rulings first involved military personnel and federal employees. In Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965), the court ruled that the presumption of non-residency of military personnel was in violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment (Columbia Law Review 1972, 170). In Evans v. Cornman, 398

U.S. 419 (1970) the Court “rejected the finding of a Maryland registrar that the residents of the National Institute of Health enclave were not voting residents” (Yale

Law Review 1971, 43). Both of these cases required that the application of residency tests must be applied evenly to all persons desiring to register to vote and could not be selectively used against members of the military or federal employees.

The most relevant case governing the issue of where students can vote is

Dunn v. Blumenstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972), where the court struck down residency requirements because they violated two fundamental rights: the right to travel and the right to vote. Communities could no longer restrict voter registration and voter participation to those who could prove intent to stay in the community. And, for the first time, durational residency requirements were subject to scrutiny by the Court:

When fundamental rights such as voting and travel are at stake, it is clear that ‘permanence’ and ‘intention to remain’ cannot be applied to anything literally. For purposes of voting, residence cannot include a durational requirement, either reaching backwards in time… or going forward in time. (Niemi, Hanmer, and Jackson 2009, 330)

However, as Niemi et al show, not all states are in compliance with these rulings when it comes to registering college students; there are locations that still use residency and dependency tests to discourage student voter registration. At the time Niemi, Hanmer and Jackson wrote their analysis, one example of the apparent 25

disregard for Dunn could be found on the Greenwood County, South Carolina website for the office of Voter Registration and Elections:

STUDENT REGISTRATION: Students should register to vote in their home county - county of origin. Students may register to vote where they attend college only, if they intend to remain in the community permanently after graduation. (Neimi 2009, 348)

This language has, since the publication of Neimi’s study, been removed from the website.

While courts have reversed the legal blocks to voting where students attend college, there are still attempts to suppress or discourage students from voting in their college town (Carney 2010; Fitzpatrick, 2008; Ostrower, 1985;

Wellsten 2011). Currently several states have passed restrictive voter identification laws, other states have ended same day registration, and eliminating polling locations. While these laws may not specifically target students, they will have a detrimental effect on student voters (Weiser and Norden 2012; Rolland 2011a and

2011b). .

Why would a city or county attempt to prevent students from voting in a community where they live for at least three-fourths of the year? One of the long- standing arguments for restricting students’ right to vote in the community where they attend college is the claim that students do not have a connection to the community and therefore have no knowledge of local issues (Keyssar 2000, 149).

This argument, the case study will show, was put forward by the supporters of the 26

2011 Measure A attempt to change the Chico City Council Election from November to June.

Some have also been expressed a fear that students will somehow manage to take over a community. As the authors of the Columbia Law Review Note summarized the fear: “…if students are permitted to vote in their college communities rather than where they reside between semesters, the students, as transient ‘outsiders,’ will be able to control local affairs to the detriment of the more concerned permanent residents” (1971, 162). Supporters of Measure A, the case study will show, raised this assertion during the campaign, and this fear of outsiders exerting control of local affairs was a factor in anti-student voting efforts in Chico in the past. This fear of a take over by student-outsiders was not unlike fears of communities that shared borders with military bases or federal enclaves (Brown and Pluta-Brown 2004, 43-44). However, there is only one documented instance where students were able to have a significant effect on local politics: in 1972, at

Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa student leaders did effectively mobilize the student body and were successful in electing a city government more responsive to their concerns (ibid., 48).

In Chico, a similar effort to elect a student-friendly majority on the Chico

City Council occurred in 1973. A group calling itself the April Committee attempted to duplicate the efforts achieved in Ames, but it met with limited success. While the

April Committee was able to place two of its candidates on the Chico City Council, it was unable to duplicate the feat with any candidates in the next election (Snavely 27

1977). Since then, the Chico City Council has swung towards more liberal leadership, with liberals and moderates holding a majority at least since 2006. Once again, as the case study will show, one of the arguments of conservatives who supported Measure A included the belief that university students are responsible for the liberal “takeover” of the council and that they should not be allowed to vote in local elections. As the literature has shown, this perception of student voters is not uncommon.

Election Timing Effects on Voter Turnout

V.O. Key tracked the ties between presidential elections and the successes gubernatorial candidates of the same party from 1920 to 1952. Key showed that there was a relationship between the national and state tickets (Key 1956, 29-31), and he also pointed out the connection between election timing and outcome:

The unlovely truth is that the manipulation of the gubernatorial election calendar is often merely a tactic in party warfare. Adjustments in the timing of elections may be made, not to permit a freer choice, but to create circumstances that will tend to favor one party or the other. (ibid., 41- 42)

I argue that one of the goals for passing Measure A was to attempt to gain a partisan electoral advantage at the polls by changing the timing of the election. E. E.

Schattschneider did not consider election timing as a reason voters might stay away from the polls. He did note that a variety of factors can serve as a barrier to voting:

It has been assumed that only legal barriers inhibited the disenfranchised… The exclusion of people by extralegal processes, by social processes, by the way the political system is organized and structured may be far more effective than the law. (Schattschneider 1960, 111) 28

Changing the timing of an election most certainly is a change in the organization of an electoral system—the system of election timing. Indeed recent research has shown that the timing of elections does affect voter turnout (Anzia 2009; Flanigan and Zingale 2006; Hajnal and Trounstein 2005; Streb, 2008). These scholars investigate the relationship between election timing and policy outcome, voter turnout, and voter suppression.

One of the arguments for changing the timing of the Chico City Council

Elections was that they are overshadowed by the national election cycle. While the timing of elections will vary the amount of interest they generate in the electorate, presidential elections will generate the most interest so they are considered high stimulus, while primaries and local elections are lower stimulus elections (Flanigan and Zingale 2006, 44-47). According to Flanigan and Zingale: “The most dramatic decline in turnout is the 10-20 percent drop in voting experienced in off year elections. Primaries and local elections elicit still lower turnout” (ibid., 45). The backers of Measure A attempted to move the low-stimulus city council election to the low-turnout primary election date. This seems like is a recipe for reducing voter turnout.

Why would moving a low stimulus election to a low stimulus cycle have a significant effect on voter turnout? Niemi identified the costs of voting in a low stimulus election are actually higher than the costs of voting in high stimulus elections. However, in low stimulus elections such as local elections, information about issues or candidates can be harder to find: coverage of issues may be 29

incomplete; in non-partisan campaigns, party labels may be absent (ibid., 115-119).

In high stimulus elections, such as presidential elections, information is given to voters and there is little chance voters will forget when to go vote (Niemi 1976, 115-

119).

We can see the effects of both low stimulus elections and voter burnout by graphing the pattern of voter turnout in elections held within the City of Chico over the past twelve years (see Figure 1). The peaks and valleys show a dramatic difference in the inclination of registered voters to vote. The highest points in the

Figure 1: Percentage of Turnout in All City of Chico Elections, 2000-2012 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Percent voter turnout 0%

Date election held, city of Chico, California

Source: Butte County Office of Elections, Statement of Votes Cast for all elections held from 03/07/2000 to 11/06/2012.

figure are the November general presidential elections—the high stimulus elections.

The lowest points on the graph are smaller, specialized elections, such as the June 5,

2001 special election held by the City of Chico, the June 8, 2008 California regular primary (which had been separated from the presidential primary that year) and a 30

statewide special election held in November 2005. As this graph shows, voters in the

City of Chico do not head to the polls for low stimulus elections. What percentage of votes are cast by student age voters? The answer to this question is not known due to the security of the secret ballot.

The contrast in turnout rates between the June primary elections and the general election held in November is highlighted in Figure 2. The data shows that voters registered in the City of Chico do not turn out in greater numbers in the primary election. City Council elections are held with the November general election, when there is clearly a higher voter turnout. The proponents of Measure A wanted to move the low stimulus city council election from the high stimulus

November general election to the low stimulus primary election date in June.

Figure 2: Percentage of Turnout in City of Chico Elections, Primary and General 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

Percent voter turnout 10% 0%

Date election held, city of Chico, California

Source: Butte County Office of Elections, Statement of Votes Cast for primary and general elections held from 03/07/2000 to 11/06/2012

31

Another explanation for reduced turnout in local elections is voter burnout. “The proliferation of election dates after the turn of the century, offering separate elections for local, state and national offices, as well as for nomination and election, may well be part of the reason for long-term decline of turnout since the

1890s” (Rosenstone and Hansen 2003, 187). This is also most likely a factor in the incredible differences in turnout shown in Figure 1. The lowest points on the graph are for city or statewide special elections held. In 2008, voters in Chico were asked to go to the polls three times: first for a Presidential Primary moved to February, then a statewide primary in June, and finally the Presidential General election in

November. Turnout was 53% for the primary and 82% for the general elections.

However, the statewide election in June had the lowest turnout of all those graphed.

Just 29% of voters registered in the city of Chico turned out. Rosenstone and Hansen quote V.O. Key to emphasize their point:

The American voter is marched to the polls far more frequently than are his counterparts elsewhere. In a single year there may be, at different times, municipal primaries, municipal elections, presidential primaries, primaries to nominate candidates for state offices, the presidential election, and perhaps a special election or so.” (ibid.)

The more frequently voters are asked to go to the polls to cast a ballot, the less likely there is to be a high voter turnout (ibid.). Abramowitz calls this effect “voter fatigue”

(Abramowitz 2004, 10). As Berry and Greene point out: “Elections held at odd times force potential voters to bear additional costs to participate in the political process”

(Berry and Greene 2010, 39). These cost include missing work to go to the polls and collecting information to cast an informed ballot. 32

Another explanation for falling turnout in local elections is deliberately timing an election in order to influence turnout. Dunne, Reed and Wilbanks, in their study of school bond issues, show that it is possible to select voters based on election timing (1997). They found that voters will generally show up at the polls in proportion to the extent to which a particular electoral decision is likely to affect them. “Politicians can encourage this self-selection by choosing voting dates . . . in this sense, politicians can be thought of as ‘choosing’ the median voter” (ibid., 100).

That median voter may be more ideological in casting their ballot than the median voter in a general election.

Dunne et al. also conclude that manipulation of the voting right in the past suggests that manipulation of the median voter is also possible in partisan election environments, such as primaries (ibid., 114). They identify three ways to manipulate voter turnout: one, hold a “quiet” election; two, set an election date when voters may be away; or three, hold a special election (ibid., 103-105). In the case of Measure A, had it passed, the city council election would be held when a great many voters—especially students, faculty and staff of the university—would most likely be away.

Berry and Green state that political scientists know very little about the effects of election timing on who votes, who is elected and what public policies may be enacted (2010, 38). Yet, like Dunne et al. , they argue that the “manipulation of electoral rules can sometimes allow politicians to select the median voter in a given election” (ibid., 42). They find: 33

. . . [o]ff-cycle elections generate systematically lower voter participation and ultimately changes the in public policy. Timing regimes that make it more costly for voters to participate in a given local government election produce measurable policy shifts in favor of special interests (ibid., 55).

Hajnal and Trounstine argue that political scientists are looking at the wrong level when analyzing the implications of low voter turnout (Hajnal and

Trounstine 2005). Political scientists have been looking at national level politics, where the impacts of low voter turnout is dispersed across all 50 states (ibid., 517).

Accordingly, Hajnal and Trounstine point out that the impact of voter turnout should be measured at the state and local levels: “…groups that are small minorities and largely insignificant at the national level can be major players within the many states, districts or cities” (ibid., 517). They find that skewed turnout can have big effects at the local level, in terms of who gets represented and who does not (ibid.,

531).

Study after study has shown that voters tend to be more educated, wealthier and older than nonvoters (Wolfinger and Rosenstone, 1980; Teixeira,

1987; Conway, 2000; Abramowitz, 2004; Flanigan and Zingale, 2006). “As a result, their concerns and their policy views as well as their party and candidate preferences may differ from those of nonvoters” (Abramowitz 2004, 104). As

Abramowitz points out, this can skew representation towards the interests of the wealthy and well educated, leaving the poor and less educated underrepresented or not represented at all (ibid., 131).

Age is also a factor in voting. As Conway notes, “younger citizens are less likely to participate politically than are middle-aged citizens” (Conway 2000, 22). 34

However, when younger voters are split into two groups, students and non- students, Conway shows that college students have a higher participation rate than non-students in the same age group (ibid, 24). She attributes the increased participation rate to ties to the community. The length of time students live in a community plus the “norms within the college student community usually promote voting participation” (ibid., 24).

All of the arguments against student participation in local elections appear to be focused on the fear that representation, and control of local regulation, is taken away from the local community. As the scholarly literature reviewed here shows, this fear of losing control has been moved from one newly enfranchised group to the next. The reality, however, is that when a group is excluded from the electoral process, it is the excluded group that ends up without representation. In a university community, city officials make decisions that can affect the quality of life of students. In Chico, those decisions affect everything from availability of student housing to noise levels at house parties. CHAPTER III

THE CASE STUDY

Introduction

In this chapter I present the qualitative case study that I use to test my hypothesis that communities that attempt to disenfranchise student voters or suppress student voting will share common traits. The analysis I present in the next chapter will serve as the basis for developing a theoretical approach to understanding and perhaps predicting student disenfranchisement in other areas and in general. My study focuses on the history of Chico, California. Some of the events or attitudes may seem distant or be surprising, however it is important to understand how past attitudes still influence community politics today.

In order to place this history into useful context, this chapter is divided into three parts. First, the racism that found expression in Chico is recounted.

However, it is first placed into the context of state laws. The second part of the chapter focuses on the City’s relationship with the college. Finally, I look at the effort to pass Measure A in 2011. I argue that Measure A is a sequel, with the political effort reigniting the same past debates over who may claim to be a ‘real’ Chicoan.

35 36

A Questionable Reputation

California has developed a reputation for being an open and welcoming state for racial and ethnic minorities. However, as history shows, that reputation is sometimes undeserved. California politicians and voters have a history of attempting to limit the ability of minorities to access the rights and privileges that come with citizenship. California’s history of racial intolerance was established well before its statehood. “Inter-ethnic relations and conflict have existed here for more than two centuries and involved Indians, Europeans, Asians, Mexicans, and blacks” (Olmstead and Wollenberg 1971, 1). For white settlers in California, “a free black man in the west was an economic threat and therefore his activity had to be restricted. The Negro [sic] was unwelcome in California from the days of the gold rush. California was to be a non-slaveholding state, and no blacks were wanted”

(Heizer and Almquist 1971, 198). Racial hostility also found outlets in the Anti-

Chinese Leagues and the violence directed at the native populations. As the history will show, that same bias and intolerance was prevalent in Chico.

The 1849 California state constitution restricted the right to vote to whites only, denying blacks the franchise and also California Indians, Chinese and

Hispanics (Hittell 1898; Wollenberg 1970). The state constitution also prohibited testimony in court by all non-whites. In 1850, the California legislature attempted to pass laws that would have prohibited the entry of free blacks and mulattos into the state (ibid.). In 1851 and 1860, the homestead laws were designed to prevent blacks and other non-whites from establishing claims (Wollenberg 1970, 123). It was not

37

until 1863 that blacks were given the right to testify in a California court (ibid.).

While the state was to enter the union as a non-slaveholding state, “California was for long a state with strong Southern sympathies” (Heizer and Almquist 1971, 198).

California’s refusal to ratify the 15th Amendment was a political expression of these ties (Olmstead and Wollenberg 1971, 66).

The history of the City of Chico reflected the attitudes that were enshrined in the state constitution. In Chico, African-Americans were not wholly integrated into the City’s civic life (Shover 1991). “A few were accorded some measure of deference but nothing that could resemble equality” (ibid., 8). According to Shover, for a long time the majority of the racism in Chico was directed at the

Chinese, and the black community believed they had “an advantage over the Chinese in being Americans” (ibid., 18). They were mistaken. However, “during the years before Reconstruction’s collapse Chico’s thirty to forty black residents shared the

American dream of hard work as the path to success” (ibid.,, 8).

According to Shover, during the 1860s, the Democrats in control of the

State Assembly passed laws mandating segregation in education if there were more than 10 black children enrolled in a school district, for those with fewer than 10 students of color “separate schools had to be established if white residents objected to integrating them” (ibid., 19). The black community endorsed elimination of segregated schools. Chico whites objected. Integration of Chico schools did not occur until the 1876 depression created budget constraints. At this point, Chico had been defying a change in state law, passed in 1874, mandating integration (ibid., 20-21).

38

African-Americans in the community were excluded from community groups such as the Masons, Odd Fellows and other fraternal organizations. Their solution was to form their own branches. Unlike white groups, the African –

American associations allowed women to join and be officers (ibid., 18).

Employment opportunities were also limited, giving “blacks… access to a narrow portion of the economy” (ibid., 22). And, while the influx of cheaper Chinese labor displaced Chico blacks from wide swaths of the already narrow labor market, Chico blacks did not participate in the anti-Chinese activities (ibid., 23-25). According to

Shover, they realized that the bans against the Chinese could just as easily become bans against blacks (ibid., 24).

The African-American community became targets of overt hostility in the

1880s and was reflected in news coverage of the black community by the Chico

Enterprise (ibid., 32). Shover documents several incidents in which Chico whites invaded services at the African Methodist Episcopal church, editorials condemned mixed race couples, and also denounced extending the franchise to blacks (ibid., 29-

34). In the 1920s, “white trade only” signs appeared in store windows, and advertisements for the Mansion Park subdivision stated that sales were restricted to whites only (ibid., 48.)

At the end of World War II, almond growers in the area needed additional labor for the harvest. Their solution was to import African-American laborers from the San Francisco Bay Area though the preference was for “Jamaican, Mexican or prisoner of war labor” but those sources were no longer available (Wilson 1951,

39

97). Growers and residents of Chico were concerned that the “laborers might attempt to remain in the community after the harvest”(ibid.). According to Wilson, at some point the merchants “agreed to bar all Negros from their establishments”

(ibid., 98). Things got worse, according to Lowry, with rumors circulating that the workers were “thieves, ex-convicts, and perverts” (Lowry 1965, 17). He added: “The community… was determined not to let a sizable Negro community grow in [Chico], and to this day that pattern has been maintained” (Lowrey 1965, 17).

The residents of Chico have a history of intimidating and harrassing those they did not believe belonged in the community (Lowry 1965; Shover 1991 and

1998). The group most harshly targeted was the Chinese, who were the victims of mob violence, arson and murder from 1860 right up until they left the city and the county in the 1890s (Shover 1998). This violence was not exclusive to Chico, and the reactions to the violence were as varied as the occupants of the governor’s mansion.

Chinese laborers began arriving in California in 1848 to build railraods.

From then onward, the occupant of the governor’s office reflected the division between those who supported Chinese immigration and those who vociferously opposed it (Hittell 1898). Leland Stanford, governor from1862-1863, believed

Chinese immigration and settlement in California needed to be discouraged by every legitimate means. His beliefs led him to attempt to pass an unconstitutional

“capitation tax” on “every person, male or female, of the Mongolian race” (ibid., 292-

293). Stanford’s successor, Frederick F. Low, governor from 1863-1867, felt the

40

opposite and attempted to repeal laws prohibiting “Mongolians, Chinese, and

Indians” from testifying in court” (ibid., 404).

Henry H. Haight (1867-1871) publicly referred to the Chinese in

California as “a stream of filth and prostitution” in his second inaugural address

(ibid., 428). Haight’s attitudes towards Chinese immigrants were at times exceptionally contradictory, publicly calling for allowing Chinese citizens to testify in court, while also stating that he believed they were “totally unreliable” (ibid.).

In 1871, Governor Newton Booth spoke out against mob violence directed at the Chinese, calling mob violence “the most dangerous form in which the law can be violated, not merely in the immediate outrage committed, but in the results which follow” (ibid.,, 503). Booth was probably the most progressive thinker in the governor’s mansion during this period of heightened anti-Chinese sentiment in California. He believed immigration was in the hands of the federal government, not the states. According to Booth, states needed to give the Chinese the “full and perfect protection” of the law (ibid.).

In 1875, William Irwin replaced Governor Booth. Irwin sympathized with the growing Anti-Chinese Leagues, and encouraged anti-Chinese feelings among

California’s working class (ibid., 584). In addition, Irwin condoned and encouraged mob violence. In 1877, during the anti-Chinese Sand Lot Riots in San Francisco,

Irwin made it clear his administration would not provide protection for legal

Chinese residents in the state (ibid.). It was during Irwin’s term as governor that the anti-Chinese movements in California—and Chico—developed a full head of steam.

41

In his 1965 political and sociological study of the City of Chico, Lowry glosses over the anti-Chinese history of Chico, stating only “The city’s two China

Towns had inexplicably burned to the ground after agitation over sanitary conditions” (1965, 14). The reality was quite different. “Chico’s people’s hostility toward the Chinese in the mid-1870s resembled local attitudes toward mountain

Indians in the 1860s” (Shover 1998, 19). The resentment directed at the hard working, low wage earning Chinese workers was aggravated by a severe depression that hit California in 1876 (ibid., 6-11). According to Shover, threats were also directed at those who employed Chinese laborers, provided assistance, or protected

Chinese lives and property (1998, 22-24). Members of the anti-Chinese Labor Union went so far as to suggest assassinating Chico city founder John Bidwell for employing Chinese laborers and for speaking out against the anti-Chinese League

(ibid.).

Shover points out that these organizations, the Order of Caucasians and

The Labor Union, were made up of Chico’s “respectable classes”(ibid., 13). Members included town trustees, lawyers, business owners, and even the town law enforcement officials (ibid.). In 1877, the Chico Town Council was dominated by anti-Chinese leaders who turned a blind eye to the violence (ibid., 26, 30-33).

Native tribes in the Chico area were also targets of armed citizen’s committees. During the 1870s, these committees “rounded up, drove out, or killed hundreds of members of the Yahi tribe” (Pfaelzer 2008, 57). Prior to that, John

Bidwell helped to establish a system of indentured servitude, “in areas without

42

many white working families, Indian children, some as young as two years old, were targeted for indenture” (ibid., 58). By 1964, the Native-American population had either assimilated, moved away or died, and the African-American population made up just one-fourth of one percent of the population (Lowry 1965, 14-17). Chico’s history of hostility towards racial and ethnic groups made it “a white, Protestant, middle-class community” (Lowry 1965, 14).

As has been shown, the history of exclusion in California and in Chico runs deep. The myth of racial harmony in the state was shattered again in 1964 when voters passed Proposition 14 (Jenkins 1970, 121). Prop. 14 would have abolished the states fair housing laws. However the United States Supreme Court declared the move unconstitutional in 1968 (ibid.). But the exclusion and restrictions still have not ended.

Minority in the Majority

California was designated a “majority minority state” in 2000 and, as

California’s minority population has grown, minorities “ have become the center of policy debates as citizens’ initiatives have surfaced on the questions of restricting bilingual education, ending affirmative action programs in government [and education], and denying public services to illegal immigrants” (Hajnal and

Baldassare 2001, v). The authors’ study explains that whites who are older, poorer, unemployed, or rent housing are more likely to have a negative view of immigrants and see the racial and ethnic changes in the state as bad (ibid., 9-11). Overall, they find that older white Republicans are more pessimistic about race relations, more

43

negative towards immigrants and more likely to view the changing demographics as bad.

Cain, Citrin and Wong found that whites are less likely to claim that their race or ethnicity is an important part of their political identity (2000, vii). At the same time, the authors found whites were more likely to regard affirmative action as unnecessary and unfair. However, is that whites who live in mixed or diverse neighborhoods tended to show greater tolerance and agreement with non-whites

(Cain, Citrin, and Wong 2000, viii). However, they also determined that the political climate in regards to racial and cultural issues is dependant “in large part on the perceptions of the more numerous whites who live in majority white areas” (ibid.).

So why does all of this matter now? Sullivan, Pierson, and Marcus remind us that liberal societies divided by intense conflicts can remain stable if there is a general adherence to the rules of democratic or constitutional procedures, but that

“implies a commitment to the rules of the game and a willingness to apply them equally” (Sullivan, Pierson, and Marcus 1982, 2). As we have just seen, that willingness has not always been on display.

I argue that the effects of the suspicion towards racial and ethnic minorities, while no longer as violent, overt, and socially acceptable, still has an influence on the recent attempt to suppress student voters, especially if the minority students are a large enough presence to be noticed by the community-at-large.

Looking at the demographics of the various neighborhoods in Chico will show a difference in the level of minority settlement within the city.

44

The City and the College

Chico was described at one time as “the Orange County of the North”

(Conner 1985), and its conservative roots are deeply engraved in its past. Those conservative roots include a deep-seeded suspicion of new comers and those associated with the university, a suspicion that is well documented in Lowry’s book.

Lowry notes that the town-gown split is very real, where “Town leadership looks upon the college teaching staff as newly arrived, intellectually conceited, and dedicated to the primary aim of breaking asunder [Chico’s] status quo” (Lowry

1965, 32). One quote in particular highlights the attitudes of some of Chico’s residents of the era: “There is a college vs. non-college split in this town, but the college brought it on themselves” (ibid., 33). Even Lowry did not escape criticism, as one of his interviewees criticized Lowry’s involvement local low-income housing politics (ibid.). In his works, Lowry explains the animosity members of the community held towards “outsiders.” It was most certainly not a new attitude in

Chico in 1965 and, I argue, continues to affect the relationship between the city and the university.

Lowry’s study of the City points out that the college was frequently blamed for problems that occurred in the community. Crime rates were rising in the city at the time, with two specific crimes blamed on the university population: narcotics and homosexual activity (ibid., 92). Lowry interviewed the Chief of Police and concluded “In this man’s mind the problem was fundamentally connected to the growth of the population of ‘outsiders’ in the community, particularly the college

45

students and faculty” (ibid., 92). Lowry’s work shakes up that notion by pointing out that crime rates had been rising and those crimes were not associated with the university population (ibid.). Lowry states that this myth allows Chico to live “in an idealized past” (ibid., 93) which leads to other problems:

The cultural order of [Chico] is fundamentally conservative in nature. The community projects this image through Chamber of Commerce releases and the newspaper as well as through the perspectives and beliefs shared by individual residents. The importance of maintaining the status quo and resisting change which may be too disruptive is constantly stressed. (Lowry 1965, 30)

This rigid viewpoint makes it very difficult to recognize or respond to new problems arising in the community (ibid., 94). More problematically, this attitude supports a myth that life in Chico was, and always has been, harmonious.

When it comes to electing City Council members, Chico’s elections are hardly non-partisan affairs. Lowry states it well: “candidates for city offices do not run on party philosophies, nor are they identified by party affiliation. Yet there is evidence that small-city politics are latently partisan in result” (ibid., 25).

Candidates appear at events hosted by political parties and ideologically aligned groups. While there may not be an ‘R’ or a ‘D’ next to the name on the ballot, by the time the election is actually held, most voters can easily find information that would help them identify a candidate’s party affiliation.

Social contacts were and are an important part of candidate recruitment, with candidates chosen through informal channels by council incumbents (ibid., 25).

In the past, the individuals standing for election tended to come from the business

46

community and “endorsements from the newspaper emphasize candidates’ ties to the business community” (Lowry 1965, 31). In addition, Lowry noted, native birth or long residence in the community were also considered important candidate qualifications. This can still be seen today, with the 2012 City Council candidates highlighting their family ties to the city. “Channels for participation are open to practically all residents who desire to and can join the appropriate civic groups and cultivate the ‘right’ contacts” (ibid., 27). The Chico Enterprise-Record’s endorsements favored (and, I argue, still tend to favor) candidates who espouse conservative, status quo guarding views (ibid.). Candidates connected to the university were regarded with suspicion which led to inadequate “representation of diverse interests and perspectives” due to the nature of Chico’s insular political process

(ibid., 27).

Fear that the university students might overwhelm the election process in

Chico is also not a new phenomenon and did, in fact, at one point lead to a Grand

Jury investigation. Those fears were expressed in 1973 when a university-centered group called the April Committee actively worked to elect left-leaning candidates to the Chico City Council (Snavely 1977). It was not until 1981, when the reality of a liberal majority on the Chico City Council occurred, that concerns about university student voting triggered a districting attempt and a Grand Jury investigation. The specter of a massive bloc of potentially liberal students voting continues to frighten conservative voters in the area, as the compilation of quotes (found in Appendix A) from the Letters-to-the-editor during the Measure A campaign show.

47

When it came to making endorsements, the Chico Enterprise-Record rarely endorsed candidates who worked for the university. One exception was Bob

Ross, a professor of political science who, in March of 1973, ran for a seat on the

Chico Unified School District’s board (Chico Enterprise-Record 1973a, 12B.). In an interview, Ross said he received the conservative newspaper’s endorsement by default. There were three seats open on the school board with two incumbents running for re-election. The other three candidates were Ross and “two hippies or super liberals and the E-R saw Bob as more acceptable” (Dwyre 2013).

So, when the April Committee, “a coalition group based chiefly on the

Chico State campus” ran a slate of candidates for City Council in 1973, the

Enterprise-Record mostly ignored their efforts, until two of the four won (Chico

Enterprise-Record 1973b, 12B). The newspaper reassured its readers by stating that the winners “could hardly… be described as ‘radicals’ of the type that have worried many campus communities” (ibid.). What made this election significant was that 18 to 20 year-olds could vote for the first time in the local elections, and the editorial reminded its readers of this new reality. The Enterprise-Record, Chico’s only daily newspaper, set the tone for perceptions of student impacts on future elections. In its post-election editorial, the editors stated:

In a university community such as Chico—with a student body in excess of 11,000—the newly lowered voting age quite naturally can be a greater factor than in an ordinary non-campus community… Young voters make up a considerable portion of our society. When they work diligently and honestly and openly… they are fully entitled to the voice they attain. (ibid.)

48

After proclaiming that a community with a university is not ordinary, future editorials expressed the fears of other university communities— that the students would take over. Ten years later, it was clear the editorial board no longer thought of the voter registration drives and participation in elections was diligent, honest work. They were cynical, manipulative efforts with “the intent… to get them

[students] to vote for people engineering candidates and ballot initiatives that likely could prove undesirable, even detrimental to Chico’s permanent residents” (Chico

Enterprise-Record 1984, 8C).

The 1973 election was the first round in what was to become a tug-of-war between conservatives and liberals over control of the Chico City Council (Fitzgerald

1982; Conner, 1985; Chico News & Review 1988) and arguments over students voting in local elections (Fuller and Samuelson 1977; Ellena 1984; Ross 1983;

Thurlow and Hanson 1984). The 1981 election turned the Chico City Council over to a liberal majority for the first time (Fitzgerald 1982). In response, Dan Hays—one of the conservative council members—sponsored a ballot measure that would have eliminated at-large elections and split the city of Chico into seven council districts

(ibid. 337). Hays put forward the measure because he believed student voters, what he called “a transient vote,” could or would “fiscally effect the city” (ibid., 337). The goal of this measure’s supporters was to dilute the impact of student voters on city council elections by packing the majority of students into one district, effectively turning students into a voting minority (Ross 1982). Packing—a way of gerrymandering districts to reduce the influence of a voting bloc—is a frequently

49

used strategy in states with partisan control of redistricting (Streb 2011, 109-118).

The plan was defeated with 70 percent of voters rejecting the measure. As

Fitzgerald noted, “The 70% rejection of the districting plan… occurred two weeks after most students left campus for their summer vacations” (1982, 338). This strongly suggests that the rejection came from the community-at-large, the community of non-student residents. It is also eerily close in number to the 66% rejection of Measure A in 2011.

Writing in a commentary published in the Chico News & Review, Bob

Ross—the professor of political science who won a seat on the school board in

1973—argued that a move to district elections for city council members would make sense in a larger city, and if the needs of a minority group were not being met through the election process (Ross 1982). In this case the minority would be the students, according to Ross, “but that assumes a ‘student’ interest in city government that is not or has not been served. That is hardly the case” (ibid.). The at-large system has been able to provide representation to all interests, while district systems tend to be “supported by and supportive of the dominant and more conservative elements in society” (ibid.). As Ross points out, district election plans are susceptible to gerrymandering, something that appears to have been a goal of

Hayes and other supporters of the districting plan from the outset.

The perception that university students affect the voting outcomes in city elections is persistent, even if the reality is not quite supported by the statistical data. Chico State Professor James Gregg stated in 1982 that “[w]hen we examine the

50

numerical impact of [students voting in Chico] it’s far less than anyone had reason to believe” (Fitzgerald 1982, 338). This is supported by another study conducted in

1982 and reported on by the Enterprise-Record. That study showed that the student vote did not have a significant impact on the results of the 1981 City Council election, which switched the council to a liberal majority (Brakebill and Yudess

1982; Chico Enterprise-Record 1982). Brakebill and Yudess determined that just six percent of students actually voted in the election. In addition, the pair found that turnout in the student-heavy precincts was 22 percent, while city-wide turnout was at 35 percent (ibid.).

One of the arguments against student participation in “local” elections is the presumed lack of knowledge students have about the city and the county. In

1981, a group of Chico State students from the Center for Communication

Information Studies conducted a survey to measure the political awareness of Chico

State students (McKenzie, Felling, Kupp, and Hetzel 1981). They found that students who planned on staying in the area after finishing their degrees did tend to be informed about local issues (McKenzie et al. 1981, 10). Those students who were more informed also were more likely to be registered to vote, and they tended to be registered as Democrats. The less-informed students, they discovered, were more likely to be registered as Republican (ibid.). Their overall findings showed that the majority of students were unaware of politics and issues in Butte County, but those who were more aware were registered to vote (ibid., 13).

51

There are some interesting similarities between the 1981-82 ballot measure to change Chico’s city council elections from an at-large to a district plan and the 2011 Measure A effort to move city council elections to June, when many students, faculty and staff are not in Chico. Just like the proponents of 2011’s

Measure A, the proponents of the district plan were able to schedule the vote for a

June special election through careful attention to timing. Both measures were drafted and supported by local conservatives, and both measures were defeated by a wide margin in a June ballot. However, the perception that university students affect voting outcomes in city elections has persisted, and thirty years later the same perception motivated local conservatives to try to change the rules.

The anti-student voting sentiments received a brief boost in legitimacy in

1984, and caused the editor of the Chico Enterprise-Record to declare:

The announcement of the possible double voting has those who have contended that lowering the voting age to 18 would spell disaster in communities such as Chico where there is a large transient youth population are shaking their heads in an ‘I told you so’ fashion. ( Chico Enterprise-Record 1984, 8C)

In 1983, the Butte County Grand Jury began investigating allegations of voter registration fraud because of allegations reported in Santa Cruz County. It was alleged that university students attending college in Santa Cruz County were also registered to vote in another county, and these allegations led to the Butte County

Grand Jury investigation of the possibility of double registration by CSU Chico students and Butte Community College students (Butte County Grand Jury, 1983-

1984).

52

The Butte County Grand Jury was asked to look into student voter registrations, which indicated to the editors “deep concern in the community about students voting in local elections” (ibid.).

The Butte County Grand Jury subpoenaed the records of students enrolled at both CSU Chico and Butte College “to determine if irregularities similar to those found in Santa Cruz County exist in Butte County” (Butte County Grand Jury,

1983-1984). The jury then ordered the Butte County Office of Elections to compare the addresses— the ones appearing as their permanent record and the addresses the students reported as their Chico home—with voter registration information in both Butte County and the county of origin for the students (Ellena 1984, A1). The county clerk found that 420 students were alleged to have registered to vote in two counties. However, the language of the headline and in the article implied that the students had deliberately registered in both counties with the intention of voting twice. Further, the individuals interviewed in Ellena’s article talk about possible charges and prosecution before acknowledging the possibility of error on the part of county election officials: “As an elected county clerk I have no other alternative than to take this to the district attorney for further investigation” (ibid.). It should be noted that the Butte County Grand Jury’s investigation specifically targeted Chico

State University and Butte Community College students.

The editor of the daily paper quickly assumed intentional criminal behavior, when arguing that “... it is possible some innocent victims may show up as double registrants because some counties are tardy in purging their files. The large

53

number, however, would seem to rule out that being so in all cases” (Chico

Enterprise-Record 1984, 8C). It continued in the same vein of casting criminal intent:

“…how can these students grow into responsible citizens if they’re knowingly engaged in violating the law? Where and from whom are they learning this type of behavior? … They cry for democracy yet they pervert the elective process that gives them democracy” (ibid.). The editor came to the conclusion that the Campaign for

Economic Democracy—a liberal progressive political organization created by Tom

Hayden—must be to blame. The editor wrapped up the opinion piece by supporting a test for voter registration: “the investigation, regardless of its outcome, once again revives and gives strength to the argument that the law should be changed to make permanent residency a requirement for voting on local issues” (ibid.). The Supreme

Court had already ruled such requirements unconstitutional in 1973.

In the same editorial, the editorial board of the newspaper claimed that voter registration drives targeting the student population were a form of vote buying but did not support their charge with any facts. Finally, the Enterprise-

Record editorial board stated that “[T]he trouble with these special-interest voters is that they are voting for their desired utopia while the permanent resident of Chico suffers in the long-run from the resultant fallout” (ibid.). This was a rather ironic statement to make since, just two years earlier, conservative council member Dan

Hayes clearly stated he wanted “to see Chico like it was in the 1950s” (Fitzgerald

1982, 337).

54

The weekly, more liberal paper, the Chico News and Review (CN&R), challenged the Enterprise-Record’s interpretation of events. In their own coverage of the Grand Jury efforts, the reporters covering the story for the CN&R found that the

Grand Jury was, in the district attorney’s words, engaged in a “fishing expedition”

(Thurlow and Hanson 1984, 10). The Grand Jury specifically targeted students in their inquiry, excluding all other registered voters, in the belief that they would uncover massive voter fraud on the part of students (ibid.). Further, Thurlow and

Hanson uncovered evidence that an elected official was double registered in Butte

County, however no investigation was launched against her—it was instead chalked up to an “honest mistake” (ibid.). A Chico News &Review editorial charged that prejudice against student voters had “reared its ugly head again in the form of a massive investigation of 9,000 local students” by the Grand Jury (Thurlow 1984, 4).

No students were ever charged or prosecuted for voter fraud or voter registration fraud. The investigation turned up no wrong doing on the part of students (Grand

Jury Report 1984-1985), however the Enterprise-Record did not subsequently change its stance on student voting or retract the charges made in its June 1984 editorial. Instead the daily called the investigation “proper” and called voting a

“privilege,” however the remainder of the editorial made it clear the that privilege should not be in the hands of students (Chico Enterprise-Record 1984).

The rhetoric against student voting calmed during the 1990s. Yet, 30 years after the effort to marginalize student voters with the attempt to establish

55

district elections, the anti-student vote sentiment expressed itself again, this time as an attempt to change the timing of Chico’s City Council elections.

The Case Study: Measure A

Extending voting rights to 18 to 20 year olds was “a signal that the group has gained significant social status” (Ortiz 2004, 212). Others, however, might view the extension as a dilution of privilege. “The less socially selective the club, the less status it confers upon others. Voting is as much a means to reaffirm one’s civic and social status as it is a means to make collective choices” (ibid., 212-213).

Disenfranchisement then becomes “a symbol of rejection, not reconciliation, a symbol of difference, rather than community, a symbol of domination instead of equality” (ibid., 213). As the previous section has shown, Chico conservatives have a history of rejecting the right of university students to participate in local politics.

This section presents the most recent attempt at marginalizing the university population’s participation in Chico politics through the effort to pass Measure A.

Chico’s history between the community and the campus makes this a compelling subject for the case study in which to test the following general theory: college towns with significant racial, ethnic, and ideological differences between the student population and non-student residents are more likely to see efforts to suppress student voting in local elections. While it would be more ideal to compare the experiences of similar university communities, making comparisons at this time is a major undertaking—one more suited to a dissertation or a full book, rather than

56

to a master’s thesis. Such a comparison is complicated by variations in voter registration laws (and the laws governing elections) among the states. Further, the job of actually enforcing those state laws is delegated to the multitudes of local jurisdictions.

The perception that the intent of 2011’s Measure A was to disenfranchise student voters was created during the signature gathering process. Paid circulators were using the phrase “Keep Local Elections Local” and were telling potential signers that university students should not be allowed to vote in local elections until they had lived in Chico for at least a year (Anderson 2010). There are statements and hints from the letters-to-the-editor and newspaper interviews of the measures’ supporters. Additionally, supporters of Measure A carried the perception forward by writing letters to the editor of the daily paper claiming, for example, that full-time residents of Chico were the ones “disenfranchised” by students voting in local elections (Jones 2011).

We cannot know what the non-letter writing voters were thinking on

June 7, 2011 when they cast their ballots in favor of moving the city council election from November to June. There is no data from exit polling available. An interview with Stephanie Tabor, the measure’s author-of-record, would also strengthen the study.

Chico is a good case study to examine what factors might contribute to the likelihood of efforts to limit student voting because of its own history regarding student and faculty. A study of a community where proponents of the measure were

57

open about their goal (to elect more conservatives to the city council), where their selected method of attaining that goal would result in reduced voter turnout among certain voters (namely students), and where it was expressed by the measure’s proponents that university students should not be voting in local elections provides the ideal case study for testing my hypothesis that communities that attempt to suppress or disenfranchise student voters will share certain characteristics. We know what the goals of the effort were, we know there is animosity towards student

“outsiders” voting in local elections, and we know the outcome of the effort. Since this is an area that has not been studied in depth, I argue that this study can further our understanding of similar attempts by other communities. This first case study is an effort to build a general theory that can be tested in other jurisdictions.

In the next chapter I will discuss the data and information that I have gathered to test my hypothesis, and I present findings that provide a clearer picture of where and why we might expect to find student voter suppression efforts based on this initial case study of Chico, California.

CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS

Introduction

In this chapter I test my hypothesis about why we might find student voter suppression in some communities with universities but not in others. I consider each factor separately by testing a series of sub-hypotheses. I argue that student voter suppression efforts are more likely to occur in university communities where these four factors (independent variables) are present:

1: the student population makes up a critical percentage of the total population of the city;

2: racial and ethnic minorities make up a higher percentage of the student population than the community at large, resulting in a more diverse population around campus than in the overall population;

3: the university population leaves the area during significant breaks in the academic calendar; and

4: the community at-large around the university shows a voting preference that is politically conservative.

I test for the presence of these four independent variables in Chico,

California where there has been recent (and past) attempt to disenfranchise

58 59

students or suppress student voter turnout. I argue that other communities that share these common characteristics will be more inclined to attempt to suppress student voting as well.

By conducting an analysis of demographic information and voting information for Chico, I expect to find evidence that will support the hypotheses stated above. I expect to find that the university population is a significant portion of the total city population; that the university population is more racially and ethnically diverse than the community-at-large; that the university population leaves during breaks; and that the non-university population is more conservative than the university community.

Tests of Hypotheses

Size of Student Population

The first hypothesis is that student voter suppression efforts are more likely to occur when the student population is a critical portion of the total population of the city. The definitions of key terms are as follows: Critical portion is

20% of the population; student population is defined as individuals who have located in the city of Chico specifically for the purpose of attending school at CSU

Chico; undergraduate is defined as “a student enrolled in a four- or five- year bachelor’s degree program, an associate degree program, or a vocational or technical program below the baccalaureate” (Common Data Set 2009-2010); community-at-large is the population of the city of Chico not affiliated with the university. 60

The official population level for the city of Chico, as reported by the US

Census Bureau in the 2010 decennial census was 86,187. The census count includes student households, as the count occurred in April 2010 while the university was in session. At the time of the count CSU Chico reported a total enrollment of 16,934 graduate and undergraduate students (Common Data Set 2009-2010). During that time, the total student population of CSU Chico made up 20% of the total population of the city of Chico.

When Measure A was first proposed during the 2010-2011 academic year, the CSU Chico undergraduate student population made up 19.6% of the population. This calculation does not take into account the presence of Butte

Community College students. Butte College has a campus within the city limits and a main campus about 15 miles outside the city. According to the city of Chico 2009-

2014 General Plan Housing Element, the city reported 6,493 Butte College students living within the city of Chico (City of Chico 2009, 7a-6). When added to the CSU

Chico population, the student population rises to equal 27% of the city’s population.

Thus in Chico, the student population has exceeded the critical portion of 20% of the overall population, and the hypothesis is supported.

Racial and Ethnic Population

My second hypothesis is that efforts to limit student voting are more likely to occur in jurisdictions where non-whites make up a higher percentage of the student population than the community-at-large, resulting in a more diverse population around campus than in the other parts of town. Additional key terms 61

used for this hypothesis are: diverse which is defined as the mix of the racial and ethnic population of the university and the city; non-white is defined as individuals who self-identify with any racial or ethnic heritage other than white, non-Hispanic on either the United States Census or the CSU Chico Common Data Set.

Since the graduate student information available on the Common Data

Sets filed by the Office of Institutional Research does not include similar racial or ethnic data that is collected about undergraduates, this part of the study is only concerned with the undergraduate student population. Additional information about the racial and ethnic graduate student population would provide a more accurate picture of the overall student population.

U.S. Census data for 2010 shows racial and ethnic minorities now make up

26% of the total population of Chico. Figure 3 shows the rise in the non-white

Figure 3: Change in Population Demographics, City of Chico 90 80 70 60 50

40 White- non Hispanic 30 Non-White

Percent of population 20 10 0 1990 2000 2010 Change in population over 20 years

Sources: United States Census Bureau.

62

population over the past twenty years. The data clearly show that Chico is becoming more diverse. According to census data, in 1990, 84% of the population identified themselves as ‘white’ with that number dropping to 74% in 2010 (US Census

Bureau). The non-White population has risen from a low of 16% in 1990 up to 26% in 2010—a gain of 10% (ibid.). The ‘non-white’ population includes those who identified themselves as Black/African-American, American Indian and Alaska

Native, Asian and Pacific Islander, Hispanic Origin, ‘Other Race’, or ‘Two or more races’ on the US Census report.

As the city has grown more diverse, so has the university’s student population. As Figure 4 shows, the non-white student population at CSU Chico has grown from just 12% of the student population in 1990 to 25% by 2010.

Figure 4: Change in Population Demographics, CSU Chico 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

40% White- non-Hispanic 30% Non-White 20% 10% Percent of student population 0% 1990 2000 2010 Change in population over 20 years

Sources: Office of Institutional Research, Common Data Sets filed for academic years 1990-1991, 2000- 2001, and 2010-2011.

63

A comparison of Figures 3 and 4 shows that the white and minority populations of the city and the university were equivalent in 1990: both reported populations that were 84% white. Over time, that symmetry in city and university racial and ethnic populations disappeared. By the time of the June 2011 vote on Measure A, according to the Common Data Set for 2010-2011, the non-white population of CSU Chico was at 28%, and the 2012-2013 Common Data Sets show the non-white population currently stands at 30% (see Figure 5). But what is the non-white population of the

Figure 5: Change, in Percent, Minority Student Enrollment at CSU Chico 80%

70%

60%

50% White- non Hispanic 40% Non-white 30%

20% Race/Ethnicity unknown 10%

0% 2003 2004 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2006 2008

Source: Office of Institutional Research community-at-large? Since the census is taken in the spring while students are in

Chico, they will be represented in both the census data and in the Common Data

Sets. It is therefore necessary to adjust for this. The non-white student population was 4.5% of the overall population:

non-white population = 3,849 = 4.5% total population 86,187 64

The U.S Census reported Chico’s overall non-white population was 26%. The formula below adjusts for the double count of the non–white student population:

(total population x % of non-white population) – non-white student population total population of Chico

(86,187 x .26) – 3,849 = 18,560 = 21.5% 86,187 86,187

These calculations clearly show that the non-white non-student population constitutes 21.5% of the city population. Thus, the non-white student population, at

25-30% of the total student population therefore is higher than the non-white population in the community-at-large.

In my third hypothesis I posit that student voter suppression efforts are more likely in jurisdictions where the university population leaves the area during significant breaks in the academic calendar. Indeed, the student population of CSU

Chico does not appear to stay in the city during significant breaks in the academic calendar. Population data specific to these time periods is not available and no studies have been conducted on the break habits of the university population.

However, the Center for Regional and Continuing Education has data available on registration levels for the winter and summer intercession courses. As Table 1 shows, the registration levels for intercession classes are a small fraction of the

Table 1: Intercession Course Registration, 2010-2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 January 1,400 1,215 1,080 1,147 Summer 3,009 2,707 2,640 n/a

Spring Semester 14,602 13,909 14,090 14,349 Sources: Office of Regional and Continuing Education; Office of Institutional Research 65

regular, spring semester enrollments. The enrollment information for the January and summer intercession courses reveals less than one percent of the student population takes classes during these two significant breaks in the academic calendar. In addition, some summer and January intercession courses are also available online, therefore they can be taken anywhere. Enrollment in the online courses does not mean the student is physically in Chico (McReynolds 2013) so, the summer enrollment numbers are higher than the number of students actually in

Chico during these breaks. In 2010, 37% (1,109 students) of the summer intercession enrollment was for online courses (ibid.). The percentage of online enrollment increased in 2011 to 45%, and again in 2012 to 52% (ibid.). These figures support my hypothesis that the student population drops significantly during winter and summer breaks.

Data from the Office of Institutional Research also show that one percent of CSU, Chico’s students live in on-campus housing and of this, 67% are first-year freshmen. The office of University Housing and Food Service rules require students living in campus dormitories vacate housing during Thanksgiving, winter, and spring breaks (University Housing and Food Service 2012, 8). Since the residence contract just “covers the academic year and ends in the spring semester with the last day of finals week” students must vacate campus housing over the summer as well (ibid.). 66

I argue that the hypothesis stating that the student population leaves the area during the major academic breaks is supported by the data, and this data is the best data currently available to test this hypothesis.

Voting Characteristics

The final hypothesis I test is that efforts to limit student voting are more likely to occur in college communities where the community-at-large votes more conservatively than does the student population. Definitions for terms used in this section are: student voter is defined as a CSU,, Chico student who is registered to vote or is eligible to vote; student voting is define as the ballots cast in a scheduled election by student voters; conservative is defined as the preference (as shown through voting behavior) for candidates for political office who identify as conservative or Republican; liberal is defined as the preference (as shown through voting behavior) for candidates for political office who identify as liberal or democratic; voter or voting precinct is defined as the polling place assigned by the

Butte County Office of Elections to voters within a geographic boundary.

The city of Chico had 41 voting precincts when ballots were cast for

Measure A in June 2011. Voter registration data by party is compiled by the Butte

County Office of Elections using what are known as regular precincts. Voting precincts are made up of one or more regular precincts. In order to determine the party registration by voting precinct, it was necessary to cross reference the regular precincts with voting precincts, then add the party registration subtotals to determine the proportion of registered Republican or Democratic party members in 67

each precinct. Using this data, two bivariate regression analyses were run to examine the relationship between party registration and support for Measure A.

Figure 6 confirms that voting precincts with higher proportions of

Republican Party registration were more likely to support Measure A. Each one percent increase in Republican Party registration produced a one percent increase in support for Measure A.

Figure 6: Republican Party Registration Effects on the Vote for Measure A 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

Percent Yes Vote for Measure A 5 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Proportion of voters registered as Republicans in precincts

Source: Butte County Office of Elections Adjusted R-Square = 0.789; P = .000

Figure 7 confirms that voting precincts with higher proportions of Democratic Party registration were less likely to support Measure A. Each one percent increase in

Democratic Party registration produced a 1.6 % decrease in support for Measure A. 68

A multiple regression analysis comparing the registrations of the two parties confirmed the results, and showed an even stronger relationship between

Figure 7: Democratic Party Registration Effects on the Vote for Measure A 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

Percent Yes Vote for Measure A 5 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Proportion of voters registered as Democrats in precinct

Source: Butte County Office of Elections Adjusted R-Square = 0.740; P = .000 the registration levels of the two parties in a voting precinct and the ‘yes’ vote on

Measure A. In the multiple regression, the standardized coefficients were both statistically significant (-.386 for Democratic precincts and .563 for Republican precincts, with an adjusted R-Square of .832) revealing that party registration counted for 83% of the variance in support for Measure A.

Because of the increasing rates of ‘Decline-to-State’ registered voters, a regression was run on this registration category to check for their possible influence on the vote for Measure A. This analysis revealed no statistical significance (Results:

ANOVA = 0.920 with an adjusted R-Square of 0.00038). The percentage of Decline- to-State voters in a precinct had no influence on support for Measure A. 69

The test for party influence on the vote showed that the party effect was very strong when ballots were cast for Measure A. The hypothesis states: the community-at-large will vote more conservatively than the student population. This requires an additional analysis of votes cast for political office. In addition, we need to find out where student voters are located within the city. These can be determined by taking a closer look at some additional voting precinct data.

Once the party significance was established, nine voting precincts were selected for analysis. The nine were chosen on the basis of percentage of ‘yes’ votes for Measure A and their proximity to the university. Two of the voting precincts were selected because they reported the highest percentage ‘yes’ votes, and two were selected because they had the lowest percentage of ‘yes’ votes. The remaining five voting precincts have reported ‘yes’ vote percentages falling in between the high and low returns.

The data in Table 2 are from the Butte County Office of Elections. Turnout data are from “Statements of Votes Cast General Election-November 2, 2010,

Municipal: Turn out.” The turnout is the percentage of registered voters in the voting precinct who actually cast a ballot—either in person or by absentee—in the

City Council election. The top three candidate preference column data are from the same statement of votes cast but from the “City of Chico Council” section.

A comparison of the City Council election choices by the voters and the

‘yes’ vote on Measure A in the selected precincts provides evidence of the ideological and political leanings of the voting precincts. Table 2 shows the voters’ 70

Table 2: Top Three Candidates, Chico City Council Elections, November 2010 and Vote on Measure A, June 2011.

Voting Percent Top Three Conservative Where % Yes Precinct Turnout Candidates /Liberal Located on 'A'

Sorenson (21.9) Conservative 2202 71.3 Evans (19.1) Conservative NW Chico 40.5 Kromer (15.3) Conservative

Sorenson (24.4) Conservative 2203 76.5 Evans (23) Conservative NW Chico 45.4 Kromer (20) Conservative

Sorenson (19.1) Conservative 2205 72.5 Gruendl (16.5) Liberal SW Chico 16.4 Flynn (16.4) Liberal

Herrera (24.8) Liberal South 2206 43.7 Flynn (20.2) Liberal 13.7 Campus Grundle (16.7) Liberal

Herrera (27.6) Liberal North 2207 22.9 Flynn (16.9) Liberal 20.7 Campus Gruendl (11.6) Liberal

Herrera (24.6) Liberal North 2208 46.8 Flynn (19.4) Liberal 28.3 Campus Gruendl (19.2) Liberal

Herrera (25.6) Liberal 2209 38.3 Flynn (19.7) Liberal Chapman 17.9 Gruendl (16.5) Liberal

Sorenson (19.1) Conservative 3202 72.3 Evans (16.4) Conservative NE Chico 37.2 Grundle (15.6) Liberal

Flynn (18) Liberal Central 3210 70.6 Gruendl (17.8) Liberal 19.7 Chico Sorenson (17.04) Liberal

Sources: Butte County Office of Elections “Statement of Votes Cast” general election, Nov. 7,2010 and Special Municipal Election, June 7,2011; Precinct map, Butte County Office of Elections.

candidate preferences for the Chico City Council election held in November 2010, seven months prior to the vote on Measure A and the precinct’s ‘yes’ vote on 71

Measure A in June 2011. Chico City Council elections are at-large contests in which voters are asked to cast ballots for the number of candidates running for the number of seats available.

In 2010, a total of nine candidates were running for three openings on the council. Only the top three vote recipients (the winners in each precinct) were selected for the table. The number and location of each voting precinct is mapped out by the Office of Elections and can be viewed in Appendix B. This election was chosen because the same voting precincts were used during the balloting for

Measure A. The percentage of ‘yes’ votes for Measure A were taken from the

“Statement of Votes Cast, Special Municipal Election, June 7, 2011, City of Chico:

Measure A Charter Amendment.” The conservative and liberal labels are how the candidates self-identified during the council election.

The two precincts—2202 and 2203—showing the highest level of support for Measure A, chose three candidates for the council that identified as

‘conservative’ during the election. The voting precinct with the highest level of support for Measure A is 2203, located in far Northwest Chico, with 45.4% in favor of Measure A, to move the City Council election to June. Conservative candidates had strong showings in this precinct, with none of them receiving less than 20% voter support. Precinct 2202 had the second highest rate of ‘yes’ votes with 40.5% in favor of Measure A in 2011 and this precinct also supported conservative candidates in 2010. 72

Both of these precincts can be considered as serving the community-at- large because neither of these precincts are in close proximity to the university (see

Appendix B, City of Chico Special Election Precinct Map). Precinct 2203’s southern edge is 3.9 miles north of the university. Precinct 2202, which is split by precinct

2210, starts at the southern edge of West 12th Avenue, 3.1 miles from the university, with a second southern edge of the voting precinct starting 3.9 miles from the university.

Precinct 2206, the precinct with the highest level of opposition to the measure, chose three candidates that self-identified as ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ during the campaign. It should also be noted that the precincts with the lowest support for Measure A are in close proximity to the university. Precinct 2206 begins at Big Chico Creek at the university’s boundary and moves south to Little Chico

Creek, less than a mile away. Precinct 2205 is made up of what is known as the

Barber Neighborhood in Southwest Chico. Its northern edge is right along the south boundary of 2206.

There were three precincts with mixed results: 2205, 3202 and 3210.

These precincts split their votes with support split between liberal and conservative candidates. Of these three precincts, in 2205 16.4% of voters supported Measure A, in precinct 3202 a much larger 37.2% supported Measure A, and in precinct 3210

19.7% voted yes on Measure A.

What is interesting to note is the allotment of votes for city council candidates split 2-to-1 favoring liberals in 2205, and a 2-to-1 split favoring 73

conservatives in 3202. These two split votes have very similar out comes. One candidate (Sorenson) received exactly the same percentage of votes in both precincts, while the two second-place and ideologically opposing candidates were also equally favored. These two precincts are geographically positioned at opposite ends of the city: 2205 is the Barber Neighborhood in Southwest Chico, the other is in

Northeast Chico.

Two of these three split ticket districts are in close proximity to the university. As already noted, 2205 begins one mile south of the campus. Precinct

3210 is in the section of town called “The Avenues” just north of the university. The farthest voting precinct from the campus is 3202, with its closest edge 3 miles from the university.

The differences in ideology of the voting precincts can also be seen in the overall choice for federal offices. In the same November 2010 election, analysis of the voter returns show the precincts with greater support for Measure A showed greater support for the conservative candidate for United States Senate. Precinct

2203 went for Republican candidate Carly Fiorina by 66.4%, 2202 by 54.9%, 3202 by 48.7%, and 3203 by 57.2%. The two precincts that showed the lowest support for Measure A chose Democratic candidate Barbara Boxer, precinct 2205 by 48.7% and precinct 2206 by 58.2%.

So far I have shown that the student population makes up a critical percentage of the population in the city of Chico. I have also shown that the non- white student population is growing faster than the non-white population of the 74

community-at-large. By looking at voting precinct data, I have also shown that the community-at-large votes more conservatively than precincts considered to have a heavy student voter presence.

All of the tests have supported the general hypotheses that college towns with significant racial, ethnic, and ideological differences between student and non- student residents are more likely to see efforts to suppress student voting in local elections. However, several of the hypothesis can be subjected to additional testing by combining more detailed demographic data with voter data.

Demographic and Voter Data Combined

So far, each of the sub-hypotheses has been subjected to analysis.

However, the tests did not answer an important question: are the student voting precincts more diverse than the precincts that supported Measure A? There are two demographic traits that can help us confirm a precinct has a high student voter presence: income and age. I argue that precincts with high student populations will have low median incomes and low median ages. In addition, determining the settlement pattern of non-white residents will further test the theory that the area around the university is more diverse.

The information in Table 2 comes from four different sources. Three sources have already been discussed—the voting precincts, the precinct registration by party, and the percent ‘yes’ vote on Measure A were explained in previous sections. The remaining demographic data come from The U.S. Census Bureau’s

2007-2011 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates. These reports were 75

accessed through the bureau’s American FactFinder web service. Two reports were generated for each census tract: Selected Economic Characteristics and ACS

Demographic and Housing Estimates.

Two maps were used to determine which census tract lined up with the selected voting precincts. The first map is the precinct map prepared by the Butte

County Office of Elections. The second map is the 2010 Census Block Map: Chico

CCD, CA. Each map was printed out as close to the same scale as possible in order to create an overlay. This was done by tracing the lines of the census map onto tracing paper and then fitting the traced map over the precinct map. The composite map was then scanned and printed out, providing a visual guide to selecting the correct census tracts.

Table 3 shows that the median household income in the three voting precincts that provided the most support for Measure A are all above the median household income of $41,632 per year for the City of Chico. These precincts also fall comfortably within the statewide middle-class income range of $53,264 to $68,300.

These precincts also have higher median ages than all the other precincts (at 32.7,

39.2, and 25.7 years old). The two precincts that showed the greatest support for

Measure A do not appear to have significant commonalities. Precinct 2202 is older

(39.2 years to 25.7 years), whiter (93.4% to 79.9%), wealthier ($63,385 to $57,576), and more Republican (45% to 37%) than 2203. Yet, 2203 gave 5% more votes in support of Measure A than precinct 2202. Precinct 2203 also gave more votes to the conservative council candidates in the November 2010 council race. This suggests 76

Table 3: Demographic Characteristics of Voter Precincts Ranked by Median Household Income, and Vote for Measure A

Median Voting Median % Household % % % Yes Precinct Age White Income Republican Democratic on ‘A’ 3202 32.7 83.5 $73,313 44 34 37.2 2202 39.2 93.4 $63,385 45 33 40.5 2203 25.7 79.9 $57,576 37 33 45.4

2205 24.9 85.6 $34,571 17 45 16.4 2206 22.8 89 $33,417 21 45 13.7 2209 28.8 73.5 $31,660 20 46 17.9 3210 22.4 82.7 $28,513 22 46 19.7

2207 21.5 79.3 $21,867 24 42 20.7 2208 21.5 74.2 $17,057 25 41 28.4 Sources: Precinct Map, Butte County Office of Elections; 2010 Census Block Map: Chico CCD, CA; Butte County Office of Elections, precinct registration by party; U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates. that although 2203 has a close to equal registration of Republicans and Democrats, the Democrats living in the precinct are ideologically conservative.

One precinct, 3202, is split between two census tracts: 1.02 and 1.03. The data on the table reflect the information for tract 1.03. Tract 1.03 has a lower median age, higher median income, and a lower percentage of residents who identify as White, non-Hispanic than tract 1.02. Census tract 1.02 has a median age of 41.1, a median income of $52,649, and a reported White, non-Hispanic population of 87.5%. This high white, non-Hispanic population is consistent with the hypothesis that less diverse areas would support voter suppression efforts. We also 77

see this holds for precinct 2202, with its very high white, non-Hispanic population, which was pegged at 93.4%.

The high median ages in the precincts 2202, 2203, and 3202 provide evidence that university students do not heavily populate these voting precincts.

However the median ages in precincts 2206, 2207, 2208 and 3210 are between 21.5 and 22.8 years of age. I argue that this is evidence that the student voting population is concentrated in these voting precincts.

The four precincts showing the strongest opposition to the measure— precincts 2205, 2206, 2209, and 3210—fall below both the statewide middle-class income range and the city of Chico median income level, with median income ranging from $28,513 to $34,571. Precinct 2209 also has the highest median age of the voting precincts that came out against Measure A and reported a higher level of diversity, with a reported white population of 73.5%. This precinct is made up of the

Chapman neighborhood.

Another test of the diversity hypothesis compares the percentage of non- white residents in the voting precincts. Three precincts close to the campus have higher minority populations: precinct 2209, the Chapman neighborhood, and precinct 2208, the North Campus neighborhood. The Chapman neighborhood has a non-white population of 26.5%, the highest of all the voting precincts examined in this thesis. The North Campus neighborhood is divided between two voting precincts and two census tracts. One, precinct 2208, has a minority population of

25.8, while 2207 has a minority population of 20.7 %. These three voting precincts 78

have the highest percentage of minority populations of all the precincts examined in this thesis.

The three precincts outside the immediate campus area are not as diverse. The precinct with the least diversity is 2202, which is 3.1 miles north of the university, has a minority population of 6.6%. Precinct 3202 has a minority population of 16.5%, and precinct 2203 has the highest minority population at

20.1%. It is interesting to note that the minority population of 2203 is very close to that of 2207. Finally, the three precincts at the edge or within one mile of the campus—2205, 2206, and 3210—have minority populations of 14.4, 11, and 17.3%.

The hypothesis that less diverse areas would support voter suppression efforts is strongly supported by the data.

One of the voting precincts stands out in the table: 2208. This precinct has the youngest median age at 21.5 years. It has a Democratic Party voter registration advantage (25% Republican to 41% Democratic), and a high rate of diversity with just 74.2% of its residents reporting White, non-Hispanic racial identity. This precinct also has the lowest reported median income at $17,057 a year. The precinct is adjacent to the university and is an area identified by the city as a residential area for students. What stands out is that the precinct returned a

28.39% ‘yes’ vote on Measure A. What does this signify? I argue that this is additional evidence supporting the hypothesis that students leave the city during significant breaks. Since the Measure A election was in June, many of those voting in this precinct may have been non-student residents living in this area. 79

One indication of ideological leanings is party registration. Republicans tend to be ideologically conservative and Democrats tend to be ideologically liberal.

The fourth hypothesis is that the areas supporting student voter suppression will be ideologically conservative. The North Campus, South Campus, Chapman and Barber neighborhoods have a heavy Democratic Party registration, while the North East

Chico (3202) and North Chico-Amber Grove area (2202 and 2203) have heavily

Republican Party registrations (see Appendix C, party registration by precinct). The remaining Chico voting precincts tend to be mixed party neighborhoods, with neither party holding a significant ideological advantage. Appendix C, when combined with the precinct map, shows us that the precincts that supported

Measure A in higher numbers had higher Republican registration. We can infer this to mean that these precincts were ideologically more conservative than precincts with higher Democratic registration.

As predicted, the precincts that showed more support for Measure A are more conservative in their candidate preference and party registration. Precincts

2202, 2203, and 3202 selected candidates for Chico City Council who self-identified as conservative during the November 2010 election. These precincts also clearly show a registration preference for the Republican Party.

The voting precincts with the least support for Measure A showed a preference for Chico City Council candidates who identified as liberal. These precincts are all within proximity to the university and have student populations.

For example, precinct 2206 rejected Measure A with 83.6% voting ‘no’ on Measure 80

A. In the 2010 city council election, precinct 2206’s top three candidates self- identified as liberal. Precinct 2209, the precinct with the highest minority population, also gave their city council votes to the same candidates as 2206. All of the data presented show a very strong correlation between ideology and ‘yes’ vote on Measure A, and supports the general hypothesis.

Conclusion

In this study I focused on creating a general theory that explains why a community with a university in its boundaries might support and attempt to disenfranchise student voters or suppress student voter turnout. The tests of the sub-hypotheses revealed that in Chico, California, where there have been recent and past efforts to limit student voting, 1) the student population is a critical percentage of the total city population, 2) the student population has a higher rate of diversity than the community-at-large, 3) students leave the area during significant breaks, and 4) the community-at-large is more conservative than the student population.

This research has led to the successful development of a general theory, which can now be tested in other jurisdictions: college communities with a large, ethnically diverse student population that leaves the community during breaks and is more liberal than the wider community is more inclined to attempt to limit student voting than college towns that do not share these characteristics. CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

I set out to develop a theory that would explain why some communities

with a university in their boundaries encourage or make possible attempts to

suppress student-age voter participation in local elections. Are there defining characteristics that can be used to explain why such efforts have been made in some college towns but not others and to predict where these efforts might arise?

In this study I focused on one effort to suppress student voter turnout, however the suppression of student voters is not limited to Chico, California. The

Brennan Center for Justice has documented attempts to challenge, intimidate and disenfranchise student voters in several states, including a 2004 attempt that targeted the students of a historically black college in Florida (Weiser and

Agraharkar 2012, 4). In 2012, Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire introduced legislation that would prevent students and members of the military from acquiring voting residency in the state (Weiser and Norden 2012, 8). This bill specifically targeted students because they tend to vote Democratic, although why it included members of the military remains unexplained (ibid.).

The passage of voter ID laws has also left students susceptible to

81 82

disenfranchisement. The laws passed in South Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee expressly prohibit the use of a student photo ID for the purposes of voting (ibid.). All of this leads to the question: Why do individuals who profess a belief in democracy then act to subvert the democratic process?

Laws impeding ballot access by university students are blatant attempts at preventing a fully enfranchised group from exercising their rights. As the literature review has shown, these attempts come from a belief that university students do not have an interest in the political outcomes of local elections, or that these students will have an outsized influence on the make up of the local governing body. However, I argue that students must be allowed to vote in local elections in order for their interests to be considered. Indeed, the Supreme Court agreed in 1972 in the Dunn v Blumstein when it ruled that extended residency requirements were unconstitutional.

Discussion of Findings

In this study, the proponents of Measure A were driven by a desire to replace a liberal majority city council with a conservative majority. I have shown that the measure’s backers acted upon the assumption that the university population is responsible for electing the liberal majority, and therefore moving the election to a time when the university population would most likely be absent from the community could skew voter turnout to favor conservative candidates. The measure’s supporters also espoused the message that students were not a part of the community and therefore should not have the same right to vote in local 83

elections. The effort to move the election was an attempt to suppress the voter turnout of over one-quarter of the city’s population.

That cannot be said enough: students make up over one-fourth of the city’s population. Their numbers, and the resulting impact on housing, are significant enough to be mentioned in the City of Chico’s General Plan and the

General Plan’s Housing Element. First, the large student population skews the median age of the city down by five years, to 29.1, from the average age of the rest of the Butte County and the state of California, with both at 34.7 years (City of Chico

2009, 7-4). Second, meeting the housing needs of the student population are a challenge as students prefer to live close into the campus. Students congregate in the areas immediately north and south of the CSU Chico campus. These areas are

“dominated by single-family homes- often subdivided into multiple units” (ibid., 7a-

15) and “are in poor condition” (ibid., 7a-23). Finally, as the Housing Element also acknowledges “it is common for students to overpay (as a percentage of income) for housing” (ibid., 7a-6). Students clearly have an interest in making sure they have representation in local government. We know from Dahl that groups who do not have the franchise do not have their interests represented.

When voter turnout is suppressed, the legitimacy of the election is in doubt. In an attempt to further the understanding of the causes of student voter suppression, I began with the general theory that college towns with significant racial, ethnic, and ideological differences between student and non-student residents are more likely to see efforts to suppress student voting in local elections. 84

Four sub-hypotheses were tested using the case study of the 2011 attempt to move the Chico City Council election from November to June in the college town of Chico,

California.

This move would have shifted the elections from a high turnout general election month to a lower turnout primary election month. The motives of the supporters for this move appeared to include suppressing the turnout among liberal/progressive voters in an attempt to seat a more conservative city council, as shown by statements made in letters to the editor published in the daily newspaper and in interviews given by the measure’s author to the daily and weekly newspapers

(see Appendix A).

All four of the sub-hypotheses are strongly supported by the data analysis. I found the university population makes up 27% of the city’s total population; that the university population is more diverse than the population of the community-at-large, that the university population leaves the city during significant breaks in the academic calendar; and that the community-at-large is more conservative than the student population.

Some of the limitations encountered in this study may also be encountered if the study is replicated in other areas. These limitations include inadequate studies on how or where the university population spends time during significant breaks in the academic calendar. Another is the need to work around the lack of information on the racial and ethnic make up of graduate student populations. Yet, my research has still provided strong support that the independent 85

variables I have examined are good indicators of where we might expect to find efforts to suppress student voting.

Recommendations and Conclusion

The data used in this study support the hypothesis that communities with universities in their boundaries may have characteristics that encourage attempts to suppress student-age voter turnout. However there is more work that needs to be done. There are several studies that can lead to a better understanding of the phenomenon of student disenfranchisement efforts.

First is to test the general theory and hypotheses presented in this study in additional communities. My study was designed to develop a set of measures that will allow for more extensive analysis of the phenomenon of student voter suppression efforts. Application of the theory to other locations needs to be done in order to see if the theory holds true in other university towns. The question then becomes: how are additional university communities to be chosen for study? Should they be chosen at random or by some defining characteristic? Should the study be expanded to college towns where have been attempts to limit student voting, and then expanded to randomly chosen locations?

Action needs to be taken to discourage attempts to suppress student voter participation. Enforcing voting laws falls upon both state and federal authorities. States can ensure local communities follow current law through the proper training of county election officials. Another option is to turn partisan elections’ offices into non-partisan offices. Since state (and many local) offices 86

overseeing elections are held by partisan elected officials, turning these positions into independent non-partisan positions can remove the party influence on the election management process.

A third policy proposal is more radical: remove states from the voter registration process entirely. Turning voter registration over to the federal government can ensure that no one group becomes a target of registration suppression efforts at the local level. It would also be advantageous to place the federal government in charge of election management rule making. By taking these two roles away from the states, the patchwork of regulations that have been used to suppress voter turnout can be eliminated. All states would be required to function under the same set of rules.

In Chico, the decisions made by the city council can have an impact on this large segment of the population. For example, in the past two years there have been changes made to the local noise ordinance in response to loud parties in student neighborhoods. As the city itself pointed out, housing conditions in student neighborhoods are overcrowded and overpriced. City zoning and approval of building permits can affect both the cost and the availability of housing. Keeping representation open to university students in the communities where they go to school is important and, as history has shown us, representation is not given to those who do not have the right to vote.

This thesis makes an important contribution to the literature on disenfranchisement. As more state governments are considering methods of 87

reducing voter turnout (through restrictive voter ID laws, attempting to skirt court rulings on discriminatory residency laws, requiring first-time voters to show up at polls, or attempting to take away dependant tax credits from parents of students who vote where they go to school) the use of timing to disenfranchise a group of voters based upon their college-student-status is a new front on the on going fight for voting rights. Student-age voting rights are not an area that has been studied in as much depth as other forms of group-based disenfranchisement.

REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHY Aldrich, John H. 1993. “Rational Choice and Turnout,” American Journal of Political Science v. 37 (February): 246-278.

Aloi, Elizabeth, 2004. “Thirty-Five Years after the 26th Amendment and Still Disenfranchised: Current Controversies in Student Voting.” National Black Law Journal V. 18: 283-304.

Anderson, Eleanor. 2010 Remarks heard by author, made by a male signature gatherer to get Measure A on the ballot, Safeway Grocery Store, Mangrove Avenue, Chico CA, October 11, 2011.

Anzia, Sarah F. “Election Timing and the Electoral Influence of Interest Groups.” PhD diss., Stanford University, 2009.

Badashi, Theo. 2011. “Letters: Issue sends wrong message to students” Chico Enterprise-Record. 17 April: Sunday.

Baldassare, Mark. 2000. California in the New Millenium: The Changing Social and Political Landscape. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Guilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Beck, Paul Allen and M. Kent Jennings, 1969. Lowering the Voting Age: The Case of Reluctant Electorate.” The Public Opinion Quarterly V. 33 (Autumn 1969): 370-379.

Bell, Daniel ed. 1955. The New American Right. New York: Criterion Books.

Berry, Christopher R. and Jacob E. Gersen, 2010. “The Timing of Elections.” The University of Chicago Law Review V. 77 (Winter 2010): 37-64.

Boelens, Joanne. 2011 “Letters: True locals know what’s best for Chico” Chico Enterprise-Record. 1 June: Wednesday.

Boyd, Richard W., 1989. “The Effects of Primaries and Statewide Races on Voter Turnout.” Journal of Politics V. 51 (August): 730-739.

89 90

Bouton, Terry. 2007. Timing Democracy: The People, the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brakebill, Michelle and Barry Yudess. 1981. “Determining Student Influence in Elections.” Paper: CICS 224, Dr. Gregg. 15 December. Unpublished, presented to Chico Rotary Club.

Brown, Clyde and Gayle K. Puta-Brown. 2004. “’Moo U and the 26th Amendment: Registering for Peace and Voting for Responsive City Government” Peace and Change V. 29 (January 2004).

Burnham, Walter Dean. 1987. Elections American Style. Reichley, A. James, ed. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institute.

Butte County Clerk-Recorder, 2010a. Election Summary Report: Primary Election Summary for Jurisdiction Wide, All Counters, All Races Official Results- June 8, 2010-Butte County Countywide Total. Compiled by Candace Grubbs, June 22, 2010.

______. 2010b. Election Summary Report: General Election Summary for Jurisdiction Wide, All Counters, All Races Official Results- November 2, 2010- Butte County Cumulative. Compiled by Candace Grubbs, November 24, 2010.

______. 2011. Precinct Registration by Party (Active Voters) Odd Year Report of Registration. February 10, 2011.

______. Voting Precinct/Absentee Precinct/Regular Precinct Cross Reference (Detail), City of Chico Special Municipal Election June 7, 2011.

______. Certification of County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters to the Results of the Canvass of the June 7, 2011, City of Chico Special Municipal Election.15 June 2011.

Butte County Elections Office. June 7, 2011 City of Chico Special Election Precinct Map.

Butte County Grand Jury Report, 1983-1984.

Butte County Grand Jury Report, 1984-1985.

Cain, Bruce, Jack Citrin, and Cara Wong, 2000. Ethnic Context, Race Relations, and California Politics. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

91

Cardwell, Lynn. 2011. “Letters: Self-interest guides city councilors” Chico Enterprise- Record. 4 May: Wednesday.

Carney, Elizabeth Newlin, 2010. “The Risk of Voter Suppression: Are Election Fraud Watchdogs crossing the Line?” National Journal, December 16, 2010. Accessed March 10, 2011.

City of Chico, City Council Agenda Report: Certificate of Sufficiency of the Initiative Petition. 2011 Initiative Petition Election. Compiled by Deborah Presson, 03/01/2011. http://chico-ca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php? view_id=2&clip_id=191. Accessed April 27, 2011.

______. “Housing Element 2009-2014” Chico 2030 General Plan. Adopted August 2009.

______. City Council Meeting March 1, 2001. Video available at: http://chicoca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2.

______. Voter’s Booklet: Measures, Analysis and Arguments 04-S11-501 and 502. http://www.chico.ca.us/document_library/departments/ city_clerk/GeneralMeasureInformation.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2011.

Conner, Patrick K. 1985. “The Fall of the People’s Republic of Chico: the day the Sacramento Valley right got back at Tom Hayden,” This World. 26 May, 12-14

Dahl, Robert A. 1970. After the Revolution:Authority in a Good Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.

______. 2003. How Democratic is the American Constitution? 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

______. 1998. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

______. 2006. On Political Equality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

______. 1961. Who Governs? New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dudley, Robert L. and Alan R. Gitelson. 2002. American Elections: The Rules Matter. New York: Longman.

Dunne, Stephanie, W. Robert Reed, and James Wilbanks, 1997. “Endogenizing the Median Voter: Public Choice Goes to School.”Public Choice v. 93(October): 99- 118.

92

Dwyre, Diane. 2013. Interview, 1 April.

Eckhart, Lori Mallory. 2010. “Letter: Where is that June vote petition?” Chico Enterprise-Record. 24 September: Friday.

Editorial. 1973. “Chico Election Results Say Interesting Times Lie Ahead” Chico Enterprise-Record 4 April: Wednesday 12B.

Editorial. 1984. “The Double Voting Possibility,” Chico Enterprise-Record. 20 June: Wednesday 8C.

Editorial. 1984. “Scapegoating Student Voters” Chico News & Review 4 July: Thursday p. 6.

Ellena, Nick. 1984. “County Says 420 Students Registered to Vote Twice” Chico Enterprise-Record 14 June: Thursday A1+

Elms, Alan C. 1969. “Psychological Factors in Right-Wing Extremism” The American Right Wing: Readings in Political Behavior, edited by Robert A. Schoenberger. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Erickson, Edward L. 1982. American Freedom and the Radical Right. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co.

Ewald, Alec C. 2009. The Way We Vote: The Local Dimension of American Suffrage. Nashville: Vanderbuilt University Press.

Fitzgerald, Michael J. 1982. “The Liberal Takeover of Conservative Chico” California Journal. September: 337-338.

Fitzpatrick, Laura. “College Students Still Face Voting Stumbling Blocks.” Time.com, October 14, 2008. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,1849906,00.html (accessed April 28, 2011).

Flanagan, William H. and Nancy H. Zingale, 2006. Political Behavior of the American Electorate, 11th ed. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.

Fuller, Bruce and Judy Samuelson. 1977. “Student Voters: Do they Make a Difference?” prepared for the California State Legislature, Assembly Permanent Subcommittee on Post-Secondary Education by the University of California Student Lobby.

93

Green, John C. and Damiel M. Shea. 2007. “Throwing a Better Party: Local Political Parties and the Youth Vote.” Fountain of Youth: Strategies and Tactics for Mobilizing America’s Young Voters. Daniel M. Shea and John C. Green, editors. Boulder, CO: Rowan and Littlefield Publishing Inc.

Hajnal, Zoltan. 2001. “Political Participation.” A Portrait of Race and Ethnicity in California: The Social and Economic Well-Being of Racial and Ethnic Groups. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

Hajnal, Zoltan and Mark Balsassare, 2001. Finding Common Ground: Racial and Ethnic Attitudes in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

Hajnal, Zoltan and Jessica Trounstine, 2005. Where Turnout Matters: The Consequences of Uneven Turnout in City Politics.” The Journal of Politics, V. 67 (May): 515-535.

Heizer, Robert F. and Alan F. Almquist, 1971. The Other Californians: Prejudice and Discrimination Under Spain, Mexico and the United States to 1920. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Highton, Benjamin and Raymond E. Wolfinger, 2001. “The First seven Years of the Political Life Cycle.” American Journal of Political Science V. 45 (January 2001): 202-209.

Hill, David. 2007. American Voter Turnout: An Institutional Perspective. Boulder Colorado: Westview Press.

Hittell, Theodore H. 1898. History of California: Volume 4. San Francisco: N.J. Stone and Co.

House Committee on the Judiciary, Voter Suppression: Hearing Before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. 110th Cong., 2nd sess., February 26, 2008.

Hyman, Sydney. 1972. Youth in Politics: Expectations and Realities. New York: Basic Books.

Jenkins, Velesta. “White Racism and Black Response in California History.” In Ethnic Conflict in California History, ed. Charles Wollenberg, 121-133. Los Angeles: Tinnon-Brown Inc.

94

Keefe, William J., 1980. Parties, Politics, and Public Policy in America, 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Kennedy, Mary. 2011. “Letter: Measure A opposition intriguing” Chico Enterprise- Record. 3 April: Sunday.

Keyssar, Alexander, 2000. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books.

______. 2012. “The strange case of voter suppression” The New York Times 13 February: Monday A19.

Lowry, Ritchie P. 1965. Who’s Running This Town? Community Leadership and Social Change. New York: Harper& Row Publishers.

McKenzie, Greg, Nancy Felling, Gary Kupp, and Tami Hetzel. 1982. “Local Political Awareness of Chico State Students, Fall 1982” Paper CICS 202, Dr. Chu. 6 December.

McReynolds, Elaina. Program Director, Center for Regional and Continuing Education. Interviewed by author, March 29, 2013.

Niemi, Richard. 2009. “Where Can College Students Vote? A Legal and Empirical Perspective.” Election Law Journal V. 8 no. 4: 327-348.

______. 1976. “The Costs of Voting and Nonvoting.” Public Choice V 27(Fall): 115-119.

Norris, Pippa. 2005. Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Notes. 1971 “Student Voting and Apportionment: The ‘Rotten Boroughs’ of Academia.” The Yale Law Journal, V. 81 (November): 35-60.

O’Brien, David M. 2008. Constitutional Law and Politics: Struggles for Power and Governmental Accountability, v 1. 7th ed. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.

Office of Institutional Research. Common Data Set, reports for academic years 2007 2008 through 2012-2013. California State University, Chico. http://www.csuchico.edu/ir/InstitutionalData/CommonDataSet.html

Office of Institutional Research. Undergraduate Student Demographics, reports for academic years 2003-2013. California State University, Chico. http://ir.csuchico.edu/ERSDB_Reports/Enrollments/ 95

Ortiz, Daniel R., 2004. “The Paradox of Mass Democracy,” Rethinking the Vote: The Politics and Prospects of American Election Reform. Ann N. Crigler, Marion R. Just, and Edward J. McCaffery, eds. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 210-225.

Olmstead, Roger and Charles Wallenberg, eds. 1971. Neither Separate nor Equal: Race and Racism in California. California Historical Society.

Pfaelzer, Jean, 2008. Driven Out: The Forgotten War Against Chinese Americans. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rakove, Jack N., ed. 2001. The Unfinished Election of 2000: Leading Scholars Examine America’s Strangest Election. New York: Basic Books.

“Random Poll: Student Voter Impact Slight” 1982. Chico Enterprise-Record 5 May: Wednesday.

Rolland, Lee (2011a) to Charles E. Summers, Jr., Secretary of State, Augusta Maine re: Investigation of Student Voters, August 16, 2011.

______. (2011b) to House Election Law Committee, New Hampshire House of Representatives re: House Bill 176, February 24,2011.

Rosenstone, Steven J. and John Mark Hansen. 2003. Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America. New York: Longman.

Ross, Bob. 1983. “Guest Commentary- Why Nobody Wants Students” Chico News & Review 31 March: Thursday.

Schier, Steven E. 2000. By Invitation Only: The Rise of Exclusive Politics in the United States. Pittburgh: University of Pittburgh Press.

Shover, Michele J. 1991. Blacks in Chico, 1860-1935: Climbing the Slippery Slope. California State University, Chico: Association for Northern California Records and Research.

______. 1998. Chico’s Lemm Ranch Murders and the Anti-Chinese Campaign of 1887. California State University, Chico: Association for Northern California Records and Research.

Siino, Anthony. 2011 “Measure A goes down to defeat by wide margin” Chico Enterprise-Record. 8 June: Wednesday A1.

96

Snavely, Keith Ross, “The April Committee: Student Political Activism in Chico, California.” Master’s thesis, California State University, Chico, 1977.

Stanley, Robert. Interviewed by author, Chico, CA, April 25, 2011.

Stone, William F. 1974. The Psychology of Politics. New York: Collier Macmillan Publishers.

“Student Voting and the Constitution: New York State Bona Fide Residency Requirements.” Columbia Law Review 72 (January 1972): 162-181.

Sullivan, John L., James Pierson and George E. Marcus, 1982. Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tabor, Stephanie L. 2010. “Letter: It’s not about students” Chico Enterprise-Record 9 September: Thursday.

Thurlow, George and Roger Hanson. 1984. “Going After Students: The Politics Behind the Double Registration Probe.” Chico News & Review 4 July:Thursday p10.

Timmons, Glenn. 1994. “Student District Election Results” The Orion 14 December.

United States Census Bureau. Demographic and Housing Estimates 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates. www.census.gov/acs/www/ Accessed 24 March 2013.

United States Census Bureau. Selected Economic Characteristics, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates. www.census.gov/acs/www/ Accessed 24 March 2013.

United States Census Bureau. 2010 Census-Census Block Map: Chico CCD,CA http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/maps/block/2010/index.html Accessed 13 March 2013.

University Housing and Food Services. The Residence Life Handbook: Living In 2012 2013. California State University Chico. http://www.csuchico.edu/housing/documents/Living_In_2012 2013.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2013.

Unknown. 1988. “Liberal Sweep Means New Direction for City Council,” Chico News & Review 10 November: Thursday.

97

Weiser, Wendy L. and Lawrence Norden. 2012. Voting Law Changes in 2012. Brennan Center for Justice.

Wellsten, Peter 2011a. “In States, Parties Clash Over Voting Laws that Call for IDs, Limits on Where College Students Can Vote.” The Washington Post, March 7, 2011. Accessed March 14, 2011.

______. 2011b. “New Hampshire College Students Can Still Vote in State, for Now.” The Washington Post, March 10, 2011. Accessed March 14, 2011.

Wilson, Record C., 1951. “The Chico Story: A Black and White Harvest,” The Crisis V. 58 (February): 95-99.

APPENDIX A APPENDIX A

Letters-to-the-Editor on Measure A, printed in the Chico Enterprise-Record, 30 August 2010 to 5 June 2011

Pos/Neg Pro/Con View of Date Author Measure A Students Reasoning Students should vote in 30 Aug. 2010 Schumacher, Betty Pro Negative their hometown or permanent address.

Do not have to be 7 Sept. 2010 Sumner, Juanita Pro Negative present on voting day to cast a ballot.

Students can vote absentee; claims “it will be the first time every Chico resident has an equal say as to who will Tabor, Stephanie 9 Sept. 2010 Pro Negative represent them at all Measure’s author levels of government. Claims voter participation will increase with a June election.

Goal is for low turnout elections; impact of 12 Sept. 2010 Welch, David Con Positive students on elections is small.

“Spoiled students” do not deserve to vote. 16 Sept. 2010 Schumacher, Betty Pro Negative Moving the election to June will give them time to “mature.” Students are temporary residents and should not be Eckhart, Lori making decisions that 24 Sept. 2010 Pro Negative Mallory affect permanent residents. “Students do not know or represent our community.”

99 100

Appendix A: Letters-to-the-Editor on Measure A (cont.)

Pos/Neg Pro/Con View of Date Author Measure A Students Reasoning Students play a small role in local elections. Backers are 25 Sept. 2010 McCready, Tom Con Positive trying to “lockdown” a permanent partisan advantage for conservative candidates. As a citizen, has the right to Friedman, Cliff “participate in the elections of 25 Sept. 2010 Con Positive CSUC student the public officials who govern my city.” Moving elections is short 2 Oct. 2010 Millbury, Peter Con Positive sighted; students make contributions to Chico. Students are an “uninvolved 17 Jan. 2011 Brooks, B.K. Pro Negative transient population.” Students are told who to vote 3 April 2011 Kennedy, Mary Pro Negative for at the polling precincts. Measure A sends the wrong 17 April 2011 Badashi, Theo Con Positive message to students. 24 April 2011 Mancillas, William Con Positive Insulting to students. It is not good citizenship to 29 April 2011 Burkett, Caroline Con Positive exclude people from the democratic process. Undemocratic and un-American 1 May 2011 Herrera, Mark Con Positive measure. The real disenfranchised are the county residents who own property in the city and cannot Zinniel, Karen Pro Negative vote in city elections. Students who are not local can vote absentee ballots. June elections do not suppress 2 May 2011 Hubbard, Sue Pro Negative voter turnout. Conservative voters are the 4 May 2011 Cardwell, Lynn Pro Negative ones who are disenfranchised in Chico. Will give fulltime residents a voice in their community; Jones, Pat Pro Negative liberals bribe the students to vote for them. 6 May 2011 Wilkey, Jim Con Neutral Trying to limit voter turnout. 101

Appendix A: Letters-to-the-Editor on Measure A (cont.)

Pos/Neg Pro/Con View of Date Author Measure A Students Reasoning

Proponents do not like the outcome of council elections when they are held in 6 May 2011 Welch, David Con Neutral November and “think the results will be more to their liking” with a June election and fewer voters.

Ory, Karl June elections would rig it for 8 May 2011 Con Neutral Former mayor Dauterman’s* cronies.

Allows voters to focus on local Wilkinson, David Pro Neutral issues; denies Measure A will disenfranchise anyone.

LaBrecht- Request an absentee ballot. “If 10 May 2011 Pro Neutral Johansen, Patricia you care, you will vote.” Do not diminish the Fredenburg, participation of students and 12 May 2011 Con Positive Marjorie professors by moving the election.

Facts are distorted to benefit a Andrews, Mary liberal ideology. The people 15 May 2011 Pro Negative Former mayor who signed the petition want a June election.

Nothing unfair about holding an Jim Walker election when the most people Chico City Council Con Neutral will vote. Local election issues member are not lost during a general election.

If conservatives want to win, Anderson, they need to run better 16 May 2011 Eleanor** & Con Neutral candidates that will attract Russell John more moderate voters.

The present elections are fair. Bartel, Debbie Con Neutral Voters are well informed in November * Refers to Thomas Dauterman, the financial backer of Measure A and backer of conservative candidates. ** Author of this thesis and her husband.

102

Appendix A: Letters-to-the-Editor on Measure A (cont.)

Pos/Neg Pro/Con View of Date Author Measure A Students Reasoning Not just students inconvenienced by the move: 18 May 2011 Harlan, Forest Con Positive faculty, and K-12 families going on vacation are too. Supporters of Measure A are not happy with the outcome of Locke, Hilary Con Neutral recent elections. Counting on the rest of us to forget to vote. Budget discussions would influence votes and result in a Sumner, Juanita Pro Neutral more conservatives on the council. Will not foster democratic 19 May 2011 Klaves, Roger Con Neutral principles. Effort is driven by money. Blatant power grab, Praiser, Sheldon Con Positive accomplished by reducing the student vote.

People of Chico have shown their preference for a liberal Woods, Robert Con Neutral council. Tabor’s goal is to elect a conservative council. Measure A would result in reduced number of voters 20 May 2011 Furr, Linda Con Positive turning out while Chico families, instructors, and students are gone in June. The current city council spends Henry, Nancy Pro Neutral money “on wants not needs.” It will put more fiscally 21 May 2011 Hubbard, Sue Pro Neutral conservative/responsible people on the city council. Flynn, Mary Power grab to elect more fiscal 22 May 2011 Chico City Council Con Neutral conservatives to the council member Pro-A people think right- wingers have a better chance of McMillan, O.J. Con Neutral being elected with fewer people voting in June.

103

Appendix A: Letters-to-the-Editor on Measure A (cont.)

Pos/Neg Pro/Con View of Date Author Measure A Students Reasoning Accountability: does not like the 22 May 2011 Oliver, Jane Pro Neutral way the current council spends city revenues. Fiscally irresponsible to move Schlaff, Heather Con Neutral the election. Students are led by faculty or radicalized students when 23 May 2011 Acevedo, Ron Pro Negative voting. Claims the students are taken advantage of by Democratic activists. Unfair: June election would ensure lower voter turnout, Sheridan, William Con Neutral would impact others not just students. Progressive city council squandered money; the change 24 May 2011 Smith, Ron Pro Neutral in the election date will result in a change in the council. Students could still vote. Allow voters to focus on local issues. Claims voter roll-off 26 May 2011 Best, Bob Pro Neutral would decrease in a June election. Does not like the attempt to limit the number of voters in Corbett, Victor Con Positive future elections and exclude students. University students are not from Chico, are “influenced by 27 May 2011 Klages, Ken Pro Negative extreme liberal positions of professors” and are “the puppets of the liberal elite.” “The liberal City Council is ruining our city through Wilkinson, Dianne Pro Neutral uncontrolled spending and destructive social engineering.” 28 May 2011 Feldhaus, Patricia Con Neutral Elections cost less in November. Fails the test posed by four questions: Is it the truth? Is it Goloff, Michael* Con Neutral fair? Will it build good will? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? *Partner of Mary Flynn, who is a member of the Chico City Council. 104

Appendix A: Letters-to-the-Editor on Measure A (cont.)

Pos/Neg Pro/Con View of Date Author Measure A Students Reasoning Costs of November elections are Kruger, Betsy lower and have a higher voter President, League turnout. June elections will cost 28 May 2011 Con Neutral of Women Voters more and have a lower voter of Butte County turnout. The League of Women Voters recommends a ‘no’ vote. “It is about development and a 29 May 2011 Reed Tom Con Neutral few people making a lot of money.” Robinson, Ann Keep the city council Pro Neutral Marie accountable to voters. Students are subject to teachers putting forth their own agenda and giving good grades to students that follow their teaching. City council members 30 May 2011 Santos, Jackie Pro Negative who work at the university “come into contact with students each day.” Students do not have “history” behind their votes.

The city government has no problem exerting its influence on the area [outside of city 31 May 2011 Coffman, Bert Pro Neutral limits]. Decisions of the council affect the people who do not live in Chico. “In order to know Chico you have to be Chico first” and 1 June 2011 Boelens, Joanne Pro Negative “students need constant babysitting.” Puts the focus on local matters Brooks, B.K . Pro Negative with local people. Disenfranchisement is not the Chisler, Eric Con Positive solution; increase political engagement and education. Sarcastic: alternatives are the 2 June 2011 Mulcahy, Michael Con Neutral gerrymander, poll tax. Encourage students do not Zingg, Paul Con Positive dismiss them. They have earned President CSUC the right to vote.

105

Appendix A: Letters-to-the-Editor on Measure A (cont.)

Pos/Neg Pro/Con View of Date Author Measure A Students Reasoning Allowing college students to vote is equal to stealing a local 3 June 2011 McWherter, Jack Pro Negative election; college students have no vested interest in Chico. Supporters are seeking to manipulate elections through Sherman, Ron Con Neutral lower voter turnout in order to favor their candidates.

Briand, Michael Does not like the negative tone 4 June 2011 Director of Civic No stand Positive of the debate over Measure A. Engagement, CSUC

Truly engaged Chicoans will Nay, Kathy Pro Negative vote; students who want to vote can use absentee ballots.

O’Rourke-Babb, Making voting more difficult is Con Neutral Paul anti-democratic.

Students have “hamstrung” resident taxpayers with 5 June 2011 Bailey, Curtis Pro Negative uniformed voting and the students vote how they are told to vote. Those who are not responsible enough to arrange for an Foster, Marcia Pro Negative absentee ballot cannot complain about not being able to vote. Disenfranchisement is being used to tip the balance in favor Laney, Lee Con Neutral of “fanatical government haters.” Students are visitors and will not make informed decisions. Nichols, Sharon Pro Negative Candidates with ties to the university influence student voting. Wahl, Larry* Accountability and Pro Neutral transparency will be improved. Students can swing an election; Some candidates have “easy Kennedy, Mary Pro Negative access” to campus, influence the college student vote. * Member of the Butte County Board of Supervisors, former Chico City Council member, and supporter of Measure A.

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C APPENDIX C

Cross Reference of Precinct Registration by Party (Active Voters) February 10,2011; Pre-Reapportionment Precinct/Absentee Precinct/Regular Precinct (Detail); Statement of Votes Cast City of Chico Special Election June 7, 2011

% Voting Regular ‘Yes’ Precinct Precinct Democratic Republican Decline Other Total on A 2200016 431 187 246 73 937 33.7 2201 22 321 338 155 52 866 27 84 88 176 49 397 38% 836 28% 613 26% 577 8% 174 100% 2200

2200010 282 263 142 43 730 2202 25 300 533 155 48 1036 40.5 33% 582 45% 796 17% 297 5% 91 1766

220021 293 122 192 46 653 26 257 485 176 49 967 2203 45.6 49 108 134 91 28 361 33% 658 37% 741 23% 459 7% 123 1307

2200028 202 133 119 33 487 47 131 141 73 31 376 2204 29.7 48 181 170 73 20 444 39% 514 34% 444 20% 265 7% 84 1307

2200005 264 86 154 79 583 06 247 71 150 59 527 2205 11 258 110 156 56 580 16.4 4200003 161 78 102 45 386 45% 930 17% 345 27% 562 11% 239 2076

2200003 198 97 101 28 424 02 587 265 365 102 1319 2206 03 251 123 133 48 555 13.7 4200007 0 0 0 0 0 45% 1036 21% 485 26% 599 8% 178 2298

Source: Butte County Office of Elections

109 110

Appendix C: Cross Reference of Precinct Registration by Party (cont.)

% Voting Regular ‘Yes’ Precinct Precinct Democratic Republican Decline Other Total on A 2200004 264 111 148 66 589 07 151 101 101 49 402 2207 08 91 44 32 5 172 20.7 09 277 200 180 56 713 42% 783 24% 456 25% 461 9% 176 100% 1876

2200017 111 76 48 17 252 18 147 186 90 26 449 19 321 124 216 68 729 2208 28.4 20 168 88 103 30 389 46 113 55 97 9 274 41% 860 25% 529 27% 554 7% 150 2093

2200012 204 89 114 44 451 13 202 75 101 49 427 2209 14 86 37 61 22 206 17.9 15 417 198 212 79 906 46% 860 20% 399 25% 488 10% 194 1990

2200023 271 295 102 43 711 2210 24 143 189 60 26 418 38.8 37% 414 43% 484 14% 162 6% 69 1129

3200016 362 316 186 59 923 3201 35.6 39% 362 34% 316 20% 186 6% 59 923

3200017 232 252 97 39 620 3202 60 364 508 198 53 1123 37.2 34% 596 44% 760 17% 295 5% 92 1743

3200031 366 425 276 68 1135 3203 34.6 32% 366 38% 425 24% 276 6% 68 1135

3200018 296 246 163 49 754 3204 61 166 143 72 29 410 32.8 40% 462 34% 389 20% 235 6% 78 1164

3200028 266 328 162 69 825 3205 30 239 186 131 52 608 33.3 35% 505 36% 514 21% 293 8% 121 1433

3200006 404 238 173 49 864 3206 07 305 259 135 56 755 30.4 44% 709 31% 497 19% 308 6% 105 1619 Source: Butte County Office of Elections

111

Appendix C: Cross Reference of Precinct Registration by Party (cont.)

% Voting Regular ‘Yes’ Precinct Precinct Democratic Republican Decline Other Total on A 3200004 299 201 128 42 670 3207 08 243 246 101 39 629 33.7 12 281 250 107 29 667 42% 709 35% 697 19% 336 6% 110 100% 1966

3200009 400 236 210 91 937 3208 14 332 471 172 40 1015 34 38% 732 26% 707 20% 382 6% 131 1952

3200011 259 214 116 38 627 3209 13 309 309 134 46 798 33.2 40% 568 37% 523 18% 250 5% 84 1425

3200001 274 143 132 46 595 3210 02 318 133 170 69 690 19.7 46% 592 22% 276 24% 302 8% 115 1285

3200003 363 192 211 70 836 3211 05 273 252 118 50 693 27.6 42% 636 29% 444 22% 329 7% 120 1529

3200021 0 0 0 0 0 23 265 211 170 60 706 24 254 239 108 44 645 56 0 1 0 0 1 3212 34.9 57 109 137 83 16 345 58 126 100 80 28 334 59 0 0 0 0 0 37% 754 34% 688 22% 441 7% 148 2031

3200019 270 214 163 55 702 20 112 112 69 16 309 3213 35.5 26 56 50 47 19 172 37% 438 32% 376 24% 279 7% 90 1183

3200022 0 0 1 1 2 25 285 267 149 51 752 3214 36.5 27 134 126 99 19 378 37% 419 35% 393 22% 249 6% 71 1132

3200010 209 280 67 22 578 3215 15 142 234 60 26 462 40.7 34% 315 49% 514 12% 127 7% 48 1040 Source: Butte County Office of Elections

112

Appendix C: Cross Reference of Precinct Registration by Party (cont.)

% Voting Regular ‘Yes’ Precinct Precinct Democratic Republican Decline Other Total on A 3216 3200029 263 283 152 45 743 34.5 35% 263 38% 283 20% 152 6% 45 100% 743

4200004 2 4 1 2 9 06 222 209 160 56 647 4201 32.2 09 198 189 117 30 534 35% 422 34% 402 23% 278 7% 88 1190

4200005 168 158 105 32 463 4202 08 285 360 172 50 867 37.4 34% 453 39% 518 21% 277 6% 82 1330

4200010 359 431 208 56 1054 4203 11 75 71 57 14 217 38.1 34% 434 39% 502 21% 265 6% 70 1271

Total Registration: 17,407 14,516 9,684 3,203 44,810

Percent of Total: 39% 32% 22% 7% 100% Source: Butte County Office of Elections