The Role of Race in Attaining Substantive Representation

Home , Bill Campbell (mayor), Kasim Reed, Maynard Jackson, Sam Massell, Shirley Franklin

Changing the Local Governing Regime: The Role of Race in Attaining Substantive Representation

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Carla Jackson Willis, M.A. Graduate Program in Political Science

The Ohio State University 2010

Dissertation Committee: Harwood McClerking, Advisor Irfan Nooruddin Wendy Smooth John Wright

Abstract

Many scholars have examined the role of representation by minority elected officials. Underlying this examination was the assumption that black elected officials would represent the interests of black constituents in a way that was better than representation provided by white elected officials. However, support for this assumption has been mixed at best. This dissertation builds upon the political representation literature by assessing the degree to which minority elected officials address the needs of minority constituencies. In order to do this, I examine multiple forms of political representation and determine how they have been operationalized in the areas of resource allocation, local changes in governing regimes, and public attention to the current HIV/AIDS epidemic in African American communities.

Dedicated to: Charles and Joyce Jackson

iii Acknowledgements

This project has been a labor of love that would not have been possible without the assistance, encouragement, and diligence of many people. First I’d like to thank my dissertation committee; Harwood McClerking, William Nelson, Irfan Nooruddin, Wendy

Smooth, and Jack Wright. Dr. McClerking has taught me how to slow down and work diligently towards finding a clear message that moves the discipline forward. He has repeatedly challenged me to become a better researcher and helped me to develop both the technical and mental fortitude that is necessary in my development as a scholar. I thank him immensely for his dedication to mentoring me even in times when it was not convenient for him. For this, I am most grateful. I thank Dr. Nelson for his immeasurable knowledge and willingness to share it freely. I thank him for his comments even on early version of my work and his ability to ask tough questions that encouraged growth and academic rigor. I thank Dr. Nooruddin for his dedication to this project and for providing technical expertise as well as professional advice throughout my time as a graduate student. I also thank him for allowing me to repeatedly sit in on his methods classes in order to resolve many of my lingering methodological questions. I thank Dr. Smooth for being my ally and challenging me to find and express my voice in a way that was uniquely my own. She dared me not to be safe and create a space where I could ask the questions that were important to me in new ways that reflected both my own experiences and the knowledge that I have acquired through my doctoral journey.

iv Finally, I thank Dr. Wright for his poignant and direct feedback throughout this process but even before that I thank him for introducing me to quantitative political science. It has provided a haven for me when I couldn’t figure out where I fit in.

I would also like to thank the city of Atlanta and the Special Collections

Department of the Robert Woodruff Library. Both of these entities were especially accommodating and open in providing information that proved crucial to this project

Finally, I would like to thank my family and especially my husband, Vincent

Willis, for reminding me that failure was not an option.

v Vita

April 4, 1981…………………………………………………….……Born- Memphis, TN May 2003………………..……………………………..………………………………B.A. African American Studies and Psychology. Washington University December 2006……………………………………………………………………….M.A., Political Science, The Ohio State University August 2005-2007……………………...…………………………………………Teaching and Research Assistant, The Ohio State University

Fields of Study Major Field: Political Science Minor Field: Formal Theory

vi Table of Contents

Abstract ...……………………………………………………………………. ii

Dedication …………………………………………………………………… iii

Acknowledgments …………………………………………………………… iv

Vita …………………………………………………………………………... v

List of Tables ………………………………………………………………… viii

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

Chapter 1: Introduction ……………………………………………………… 1

Chapter 2: Minority Representation and the Redistribution of Resources …………………………………………………. 23

Chapter 3: Becoming Politically Incorporated – The Atlanta Story ……………………………………………………………. 51

Chapter 4: Becoming Politically Incorporated – Changing the Governing Regime ……………………………………………. 85

Chapter 5: Exploring New Boundaries – HIV/AIDS as a Local Crisis …………………………………………………. 103

Chapter 6: Conclusion ……………………………………………………….. 139

Bibliography …………………………………………………………………. 152

Appendix A: Cities Used in Chapter 2: Minority Representation and the Redistribution of Resources ………………………… 162

vii

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Difference in African American and White Public Opinion, 1988 ………………………………………….. 44

Table 2.2: Summary Statistics …………………………………………….. 45

Table 2.3: Difference of Means Analysis …………………………………. 47

Table 2.4: Regression Results for Redistributive Expenditures ………………………………………………………………. 50

Table 3.1: Atlanta Mayors and City Council Representatives 1937 – 2010 ……………………………………………… 82

Table 3.2: Population Changes in Atlanta, GA 1950-2008 …………………………………………………… 83

Table 4.1: Description of Dependent Variables …………………………... 99

Table 4.2: Municipal Funding Decisions using the Presence of Black Mayors as Structural Breaks ………………………. 102

Table 5.1: Count of HIV/AIDS Articles in National African American Magazines 2000-2009 …………………………………. 129

Table 5.2: Count of HIV/AIDS Articles in Atlanta Newspapers 2000-2009 …………………………………………… 129

viii

List of Figures

Figure 3.1: Population Changes in Atlanta, GA 1950-2008 ……………………………………………………… 84

Figure 4.1: Redistributive Funding Areas …………………………………… 100

Figure 4.2: General Service Spending Areas ………………………………... 101

Figure 5.1: Trend in Naming HIV/AIDS as Most Urgent Health Problem by Race/Ethnicity ……………………………. 130

Figure 5.2: Percent Who Are “Very Concerned” about Becoming Infected with HIV ………………………………………… 131

Figure 5.3: Perceptions of Prejudice and Discrimination against People Living with HIV/AIDS in the U.S. …………………………. 132

Figure 5.4: HIV/AIDS as the Most Urgent Health Concern for African Americans vs. Total Count of HIV/AIDS Articles in the Atlanta Newspapers from 2000-2009 …………………………………………………………….. 133

Figure 5.5: Analysis of HIV/AIDS Articles in Black Enterprise 2000-2009 ……………………………………………... 134

Figure 5.6: Analysis of HIV/AIDS Articles in Ebony Magazine 2000-2009 ……………………………………………... 135

Figure 5.7: Analysis of HIV/AIDS Articles in Essence Magazine 2000-2009 ……………………………………………. 136

Figure 5.8: Analysis of HIV/AIDS Articles in Jet Magazine 2000-2009 ………………………………………………….. 137

ix Figure 5.9: Analysis of HIV/AIDS Articles in Atlanta Journal Constitution 2000-2009 ………………………………….. 138

Chapter 1

Introduction

On November 4, 2008, election night, America did the unthinkable and elected

Illinois Senator Barack Obama as the first African-American president of the United

States. Undoubtedly, many African Americans and whites alike never dreamed this day would happen in their lifetimes. After nearly two grueling years of a presidential campaign where race, socio economic status, an economic meltdown, and two wars took center stage, America has done what many considered a dream. In the months and years to come, Americans will have the chance to help America either move towards a new and more prosperous future or regress to the old days of hate, social stagnation, and an undemocratic democracy.

Ironically, we have seen previous examples of this type of excitement and hope for what the future could be on a much smaller, yet significant, stage. The late 1960s began what would become a succession of African-American politicians serving as mayors and city council representatives of major U.S. cities. In 1967, Carl Stokes was elected as the first African-American mayor of Cleveland, OH. Stokes served as mayor from 1968-1971. Stokes’ electoral success was complimented by that of Richard

Hatcher, who was elected mayor of Gary, Indiana in 1967 and served as mayor from

1968-1987. The success of Stokes and Hatcher was followed by many more African-

American mayors who served throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s including Thomas

Bradley of Los Angles, CA from 1973-1993, Maynard Jackson of Atlanta, GA from

1974-1982 and 1990-1994, Harold Washington of Chicago, IL from 1983-1987, David

Dinkins of New York City, NY from 1990-1993, and Willie Herenton of Memphis, TN from 1992-2009.

In many instances, personal accounts from these elections can be categorized into two types of narratives that varied to a large degree on racial group membership. African

Americans often described immense joy and hopes for a more equitable share of city resources. Many whites described fear of an African American take-over and uncertainty over their share of resources and influence within the city.

Scholars have debated the role of minority representation in realizing these hopes and fears for some time. Underlying this debate was the assumption that black elected officials would represent the interests of black constituents in a way that was better than representation provided by prior white elected officials. However, support for this assumption has been mixed at best. Some scholars have found that African-American elected officials were influential in implementing policies and programs that benefited minority residents (Karnig and Welch 1980, Eisinger 1982a, Browning, Marshall and

Tabb 1984, Fraga, Meier and England 1986, Brown 1996, Brown 2007) while others contend that African-American elected officials were largely ineffective (Keller 1978,

Nelson 1977, Reed 1988).

With over forty years of evidence on African-American representation, it is appropriate to determine whether either the joys and hopes of the African-American community have been met or the fears and uncertainties of the white community have been realized. The central goal of this project is to examine the substantive effects of

African-American representation by exploring the role of African-American mayors and council members in municipal decision-making and the construction of public policy.

This project builds on the political representation literature by assessing the degree to

which African-American elected officials address the needs of African-American

constituencies. It rests firmly within the race and politics literature by both recognizing

the strength of race and racial group membership in American politics and seeking to

answer lingering questions about the state of local government through this lens. This project is a necessary addition to the literature on African-American representation, racial and ethnic politics, urban politics, and public policy. It works to answer questions of whether African-American representation influences policy decisions that forward the tangible objectives of urban communities. I believe that these actions are the ones that matter and are also the ones that have a lasting impact on the ways we understand cities and how they are to be governed.

In the forthcoming text, I introduce the reader to conversations on the concept of political representation and examine its multiple forms. Subsequent chapters then determine how these forms have been operationalized in the areas of resource allocation, local changes in governing regimes, and public attention towards the current HIV/AIDS epidemic in African-American communities. Now I will turn attention towards conventional debates regarding the concept of political representation.

1.1. What is Political Representation?

Scholars have generally built upon the work of Hanna Pitkin (1967) to help disentangle the concept of political representation (Prewitt and Eulau 1969, Wahlke

1971, Peterson 1970, Muller 1970, Eulau and Karps 1977, Canon 1999, Sinclair-

Chapman 2002). Pitkin ultimately defines political representation as “acting in the

3 interest of the represented, in a manner that is responsive to them” (Pitken 1967, 209). In this quote, Pitken alludes to two actors, the representative and the represented. The representative has the responsibility to “act in the interest of the represented.” This means two things. First, the representative must be aware of the interests of the represented. Second, the representative should take these interests into account when deciding how to act. However, while not explicitly stated, Pitkin also alludes to a set of responsibilities for the represented. In order for the representative to be responsive to the represented, the represented must make their demands known. Presuming this on the part of the represented, the representative has the choice to act in the interests of the represented or to adhere to a completely separate agenda. Only the former, according to

Pitkin, would be considered political representation.

Pitkin (1967) claims that there are different forms of representation including formal representation, descriptive representation, symbolic representation, and substantive representation. According to Pitkin, formal representation is present when an elected official formally represents those who elected his constituents. By this view, representation is defined in terms of a transaction that takes place at the outset, before actual representing occurs (Pitken 1967, 59). For example, a local councilman formally represents all persons who reside in his district or ward. Similarly, a mayor formally represents all persons who live within the municipality’s borders. However, neither role as a formal representative focuses on the ability or actions of the representative in acting for those he represents. Formal representation is therefore insufficient at explaining essential questions about representation. Next, Pitkin describes descriptive representation as a concept that focuses on the representative’s identifiable characteristics. Similarly,

Walton (2010) describes descriptive representation as, “the extent to which the legislature

looks like the people in a demographic sense” (Walton 2010, 181-182). Peterson (1970)

says that descriptive representation is “the extent to which the representatives reflect

accurately the characteristics of those whom they formally represent” (Peterson 1970,

492). Peterson goes on to explain that while no representative can fully encapsulate the descriptive characteristics of all of his constituents, certain characteristics resonate as

more politically important than others. Therefore characteristics such as race, ethnicity,

original place of residence or religion may be politically important to different political

groups at different times. For example, African-American residents of Cleveland, Ohio,

Gary, Indiana, and later Atlanta, GA mobilized to elect African-American mayors to

govern their cities and represent their interests. In this case, race was an important

descriptive characteristic that informed the vote of African-American residents. The

same can be said of many women who sought representation by women representatives.

In this case, the important descriptive characteristic was gender. Women voted for other

women with the hopes that female representatives would support policies that benefited

women (Mansbridge 1999).

There is mixed evidence on the value of descriptive representation. On one hand,

Jane Mansbridge (1999) claims that descriptive representation has value. Mansbridge

claims that descriptive representation “enhances the substantive representation of

interests by improving the quality of deliberation…in contexts of group mistrust and

uncrystallized interests” (Mansbridge 1999, 628).1 Additionally, Mansbridge argues that

1 William Bianco (1994) concludes that trust enhanced by descriptive representation only applies if constituents have homogenous interests. Bianco claims that “constituents are more likely to trust a representative who shares their demographics compared to one who does not, and such trust will increase 5 descriptive representation provides a social meaning of “ability to rule” and increases legitimacy particularly for groups that have historically experienced political subordination (Mansbridge 1999, 1). However, Pitken (1967) criticizes descriptive representation for its inability to demand action in the form of governing, law making, and decision making as a part of representation. Instead, Pitken claims that descriptive representation is useful only to ensure that all voices are heard in efforts to critique or debate the actions of the government. The action of acting in the interest of the represented is left to someone else. Pitken therefore claims that descriptive representation is “as incomplete as the formalistic view” because among other things, it allows no room for the representative to govern (Pitken 1967, 81).

Next, Pitkin (1967) describes symbolic representation as standing for the interests of the represented and using symbols as evidence of political effectiveness. Whitby describes symbolic representation as “the extent to which a representative is accepted as believable or classified as one of their own” by her constituency (Whitby 1998, 4). In fact, Whitby claims that symbolic policies neither distribute public goods nor do they regulate behavior. Instead symbolic policies are designed to reflect the interests and concerns of a representative’s constituency (Whitby 1998, 98). Sinclair-Chapman (2002) claims that symbolic representation focuses on “acts aimed at giving voice to group interests to enhance political deliberation that addresses the concerns of disadvantaged groups” (Sinclair-Chapman 2002, 8). Both Whitby and Sinclair-Chapman agree that symbolic legislation provides psychological benefits and assurance that the representative

the chances that the representative’s behavior is consistent with constituent interests” (Bianco 1994, 9; [ quoted in Canon 1999, 53])

is working to voice the concerns of her constituency. Without these forms of symbolic legislation, it is unclear whether the concerns of this consistency would be addressed.

Symbolic representation is more favorable than descriptive representation alone.

Unlike descriptive representation that requires no action on the part of the representative, symbolic representation focuses on the quality of the representative’s efforts. Symbolic representation alone, however, can not address all of the issues that are present among the constituency. Instead, symbolic representation is valuable because it is designed to address the needs of disadvantaged groups through action (Sinclair-Chapman 2002).

Symbolic representation is also useful when other forms of representation are either inadequate or unattainable. To this point, symbolic representation can include low-cost

ways for a representative to appease her constituents without directly challenging the

status quo. Therefore while symbolic representation could include naming a high school

after the first African-American mayor or launching a political campaign in a severely

distressed neighborhood, it could also include speaking about controversial issues like

HIV/AIDS in order to create a place for it on the public’s agenda.

Pitkin describes a final form of political representation in her description of

substantive representation. Substantive representation describes “the extent to which the

orientation of the representative is in accord with the interests of his constituents”

(Peterson 1970, 492). Similarly, Canon describes substantive representation as

representation that “moves beyond appearances to specify how the member serves the

interests of the constituent” (Canon 1999, 55). Substantive representation can take on

one of two forms, the trustee or the delegate. The trustee evaluates the needs of the

constituency against a variety of other contextual factors including national, moral, local,

and political concerns. The trustee determines what she believes is the best course of action given these and behaves accordingly. The trustee’s decision does not necessarily align with the desires of the constituents that she was elected to represent, as other contextual factors may override their significance. Alternatively, substantive representation can be executed by a delegate. This delegate’s job is to carry out the

desires of the voters. In doing this, the delegate ignores the same contextual factors that

weighed so heavily in the decisions of the trustee representative. Instead, the delegate

informs herself of the voter’s opinions and acts accordingly. Both Pitkin (1967) and

Canon (1999) agree that true substantive representation incorporates a delicate balance

between these two extreme forms of representation. On one hand, the trustee form of

representation threatens to silence the voices of those she was elected to represent, while

the delegate threatens to improperly elevate the opinion of voters and ignore other

relevant factors. Pitkin summarized this delicate balance over thirty years ago in stating,

“Representation here means acting in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsive to them. The representative must act independently; his action must involve discretion and judgment; he must be the one who acts…And, despite the resulting potential for conflict between representative and represented about what is to be done, that conflict must not normally take place. The representative must act in such a way that there is not conflict, or if it occurs an explanation is called for.” (Pitkin 1967, 209-210)

Proponents of minority representation claim that substantive representation for

minority groups is most likely to occur by minority representatives (Carmichael and

Hamilton 1967, Nelson and Meranto 1977, Eisinger 1982a, Clark and Ferguson 1983,

Browning, Marshall, and Tabb 1984, Whitby 1998). Whitby (1998) explores the role of

descriptive representation on legislative voting behavior to determine how responsive

Congress is to the policy concerns of African Americans. For instance, Whitby (1998) finds that African-American Democrats in Congress supported more liberal policies than 8

did their white colleagues and tended to vote as a unified block on economic and racial

issues. In fact, Whitby (1998) shows that out of eleven pieces of key legislation in the

103rd Congress and twelve pieces of key legislation in the 104th Congress, the voting

behavior of African-American Congressional Democrats differed only on the details of

trade policy, crime control measures, the environment, farm legislation, and defense.

Owens (2005) and Preuhs (2006) find that descriptive representation at the state level is important for substantive policy decisions that address the concerns of minority groups. Owens (2005) finds that increased African-American representation in the state legislature is associated with higher percentages of the state’s budget being allocated towards welfare services. Preuhs (2006) also explores this question and finds that

“descriptive representation has real implications for substantive representation and policy influence” (Preuhs 2006, 598). Unlike prior studies, Preuhs (2006) highlights the role of race in shaping the political context. Preuhs finds that if racial cleavages do not enter the political context then descriptive representation is more likely to lead to policy responsiveness for minority groups even when the Democratic party does not control the government (Preuhs 2006, 598).

However, in her 1993 book Black Faces, Black Interests, Swain challenges the assumption that substantive representation for minority groups is most likely to occur by minority representatives. Instead, Swain argues that blacks can be equally represented by either black or white elected officials. Swain (1993) examines the voting patterns of

Congressional representatives based on the percentage of African Americans in their district and claims that...

“African Americans who advance such arguments (i.e. only blacks can represent blacks) may not recognize that they are placing such a high value on descriptive representation that they are ignoring other characteristics of representation that may be in the group’s interests, such as age, seniority in Congress, and history of responsiveness. Whenever a black majority, regardless of whether it is in a newly created district or not, is not represented by a black politician, the argument that only blacks can represent blacks is made. Yet descriptive representation of blacks guarantees only black faces and is, at best, an intangible good; substantive representation is by definition real and color blind. Substantive representation can be measured by a politician’s performance on indicators such as voting and casework.” (Swain 1993, 211)

Swain (1993) uses this analysis to claim that 1) the percentage of African

Americans in a district does not strongly predict congressional vote patterns and 2) that

some white representatives of majority white districts do just as good a job in

representing the interests of African Americans as African-American representatives of

majority black districts. Swain then claims that the provisions of the Voting Rights Act

that allow for redistricting based on race are misguided and that efforts for representation by African Americans should come by way of racially mixed districts.

For African Americans, the elections of early black mayors, council members,

congressmen, and the recent election of President Barack Obama are evidence of the

desire to obtain political representation that successfully performs each of the

aforementioned types of political representation. However, these elections place a premium on substantive representation. While it may in fact be the most difficult form of

political representation to achieve, it is also the only form of political representation

where the needs and wants of African-American communities are incorporated into the

governing system.

1.2 African-American Representation: The Rise of the African-American Local

Elected Officials

Harold Gosnell writes in his 1935 text Negro Politicians, “the role of an ethnic minority in the politics of a given locality is closely related to the total situation in which the group finds itself” (Gosnell 1935, 1). By this Gosnell alludes to the shared political experiences of minority groups irrespective of locality and later promotes electoral politics as a method by which minority groups can voice their needs and wants in the governing system. There have been a series of works written to document the impact of race since Gosnell’s writings (Parenti 1970, Nelson and Meranto 1977, McAdams 1982,

Dawson 1994, Bayor 1996, Reed 1999, Mollenkopf 2003, Pinderhughes 2003). In a 1970 article, Parenti argues that race played a significant role in determining which group attained access to municipal resources in Newark, NJ. Bayor (1996) details the history of racial subordination, protest, and eventual electoral success as he documents the political battle for equality in Atlanta, GA. Pinderhughes (2003) documents how racial conflict stifled the efforts of Harold Washington, Chicago’s first African-American mayor in

1983. Mollenkopf (2003) concludes that racial conflict could be directly attributable to the failed re-election of David Dinkins, New York City’s first black mayor in 1990.

In their 1977 text Electing Black Mayors, Nelson and Meranto highlight the interplay between protest and power as factors that determine which groups will secure control of the local decision making process and which groups will be factored out of this process. The authors explain that race, rather than class or geographic location, served as the primary barrier to full citizenship. However, this same barrier created a unique opportunity set by which African Americans were able to embark on a path of group

11 consciousness and eventually make demands on the same political institutions that locked them out of the political process.2

The authors espouse protest as a viable strategy for securing group goals and consolidate the lessons of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee by stating that “…power when strategically applied can produce results in situations where all the efforts at persuasion in the world will have little, if any, effect” (Nelson and Meranto

1977, 16). The authors describe power as the ability to influence the allocation of governmental resources. Political power is dependent on a group’s ability to achieve group cohesion, leadership, political consciousness, and organization. Group cohesion describes feelings of a common fate among members of the group.3 Leadership describes the extent to which group members respect the selected leader’s suggestions. Political consciousness describes the belief that the fate of the group can be changed through political action. Finally, organization describes the process of building of political groups to achieve the group’s goals.

Each of the aforementioned works emits a subtle bias towards electoral politics and the proposed power of elected officials to change political institutions from within.

The authors support the notion that representation from members of one’s own race is the best way to ensure that a group's interests are both heard and applied to the governing

2 The authors explain that during the Great Migration, African Americans had two important ingredients that they needed to challenge established political traditions: numerical concentration and geopolitical concentration. However, these two resources are not enough by themselves to secure a response from traditional governing systems that were antagonistic towards the needs and wants of African Americans. African Americans also needed to develop group consciousness and racial pride. These additional resources helped African Americans see themselves as a group and their individual ailments as collective concerns.

3 Dawson (1994) describes this concept as the black utility heuristic whereby the “more one believes one’s own life chances are linked to those of blacks as a group, the more one will consider racial group interests in evaluating alternative political choices.” (Dawson 1994, 75)

structure. However, the authors warn that these representatives must be in positions of

power where they are able to make necessary changes. This line of logic demands

African-American political representation and policy responsiveness. The following two

sections describe both of these concepts in detail and discuss significant limitations to

their effectiveness.

1.3 African-American Representation and Policy Responsiveness

There have been multiple efforts by scholars to operationalize the concept of

political representation. Scholars who study race and ethnicity in both the American and

international systems have sought to determine the impact of minority representation on the governing system (Carmichael and Hamilton 1967, Nelson and Meranto 1977,

Eisinger 1982b, Clark and Ferguson 1983, Browning, Marshall, and Tabb 1984, Guiner

1992, Swain 1993, Smith 1996, Lublin 1997, Whitby 1998, Canon 1999, Brown 2007).

However, in order to determine the impact of minority representation, one must first determine who is represented, the group, the individual, or a unique combination of the two. Dawson’s work on the black utility heuristic helps to disentangle this query.

According to this concept the “more one believes one’s own life chances are linked to those of blacks as a group, the more one will consider racial group interests in evaluating alternative political choices” (Dawson 1994, 75). McClerking (2001) explains this

concept more clear in saying that “… common fate is the idea that the life chances of an

individual are affected by the relative life chances of other individuals in her group,

hence their fates are shared… whatever happens to one’s group is relevant to one’s own

outcome” (McClerking 2001, 11). Linked or common fate helps to create a set of

consensus issues that simultaneously forward the interests of the group and the

individual. For example, African Americans as a group generally support liberal

economic and racial issues including increased federal funding for the elderly, homeless,

and public schools (Dawson 1994). However, the notion that both the group and the

individual can be represented simultaneously may be misleading, as it can work with

some issues but not with others and threaten to silence individual preferences that do not

align with the consensus of the group. Cohen (1999) discusses the role of cross-cutting

issues as a method that challenges consensus issues such that they are expanded to

include the preferences of individuals within the group. Cohen (1999) documents the

internal process of black politics which repeatedly rejects the preferences of specific

individuals who are marginalized within the group. Her work would suggest that the

representation of groups through consensus issues represents some individual interests

but systematically denies representation of specific individual needs within the group.

Representation also requires responsiveness from representatives. Scholars Eulau

and Karps (1977) acknowledge that this is an integral component of substantive

representation. The authors define multiple types of responsiveness including service

responsiveness, allocational responsiveness, policy responsiveness, and symbolic

responsiveness. Eulau and Karps (1977) describe service responsiveness as non- legislative services that a representative performs on a routine basis for members of her constituency. These activities may include responding to written inquiries or drafting editorials in local newspapers to inform their constituency of legislation that may be of interest to them. Allocational responsiveness describes the representative’s ability to

anticipate and provide for the wants of her constituency through the allocation of public

projects and public resources that benefit the representative’s district. For example, this

may include securing money for the construction of a new post office, educational

program grants or urban renewal money for the construction of mixed use developments.

Policy responsiveness describes a meaningful connection between constituent policy preferences and the representative’s official behavior. Policy responsiveness demands

that the representative adhere to the policy preferences of the represented irrespective of

how those policy preferences came about. For example, policy responsiveness would

demand that representatives support living wage legislation if their constituency preferred

it. Conversely, policy responsiveness would also demand that a representative support

bans on federally funded abortion if their constituency preferred it as well. Finally,

symbolic responsiveness describes the actions that representatives perform to gain or

maintain the trust and confidence of the represented. Acts of symbolic responsiveness

could include visits to economically impoverished areas, naming a post office after an

esteemed leader or commissioning days to bring attention to the ills of particular

communities.

In their 1984 text Protest is Not Enough, Browning, Marshall and Tabb introduce

the concept of political incorporation. The authors describe political incorporation as a strategic position that is completed when a group achieves significant descriptive representation, policy responsiveness, and membership in the governing coalition. The group is then able to wield a substantial degree of influence in the political decision

making process. The authors claim that this leads to a redistribution of resources toward

the newly empowered group who were without resources prior to becoming politically

incorporated.

Browning, Marshall and Tabb (1984) make distinctions between degrees of

political representation by minority groups and divided these distinctions into three

categories; simple representation, policy responsiveness, and political incorporation.

Each level of political representation is progressively better for instituting minority

concerns than its predecessor. Simple representation would be limited to whether a

representative was descriptively similar to the black community. Like descriptive

representation mentioned above, simple representation requires only that the elected

official “look like” the constituency they were elected to represent and makes no claims

of power or influence in the governing process. In this case, representatives are only

present in the governing institution. They have no power to forward their personal or

community’s agenda.

Policy responsiveness, a defined by Browning Marshall and Tabb (1984), is a

better political system for minority constituents compared to simple representation.

Similar to the description by Eulau and Karps (1977), governments are considered

politically responsive when they adopt policies that respond to their constituents interests.

However, Browning, Marshall, and Tabb add that policy responsiveness can adversely impact the goals of grassroots minority group mobilization. Politically responsive local governments may make attempts to appease minority groups. This tactic, thereby, reduces the mobilizing potential for grassroots organization and protest while doing nothing to change the cause of the minority group’s concern. Significant numbers of minority group members may be satisfied with these temporary gains and abandon efforts to change the political system. However, policy responsiveness is not all bad. It works

16 well for small demands from the political system and is better than simple representation which makes no concession to minority demands.

The optimal political system is political incorporation. According to Browning,

Marshall, and Tabb (1984), this is the end result of political mobilization, representation, and responsiveness. Political incorporation is where the governing system not only includes minority members but those members have substantial influence and authority over the decision making process. Political incorporation fundamentally restructures the governing process by adhering to minority interests of inclusion, substantial authority, and influence. The authors claim that protest is not enough to secure political equality.

They claim that protest must be translated into electoral organizing, recruiting candidates, controlling the number of candidates who run for election, and developing supportive coalitions (Browning, Marshall, and Tabb 1984).

Together, the works of Eulau and Karps (1977) and Browning, Marshall and Tabb

(1984) provide four viable ways to operationalize substantive representation through allocational responsiveness, symbolic responsiveness, policy responsiveness and political incorporation. As theorized by Browning, Marshall and Tabb these operational structures occur on a continuum where political incorporation is most preferred. Political incorporation, unlike the other types of operational structures must encompass a change in the governing regime. This change must allow minority groups to become permanent members of the governing regime and always factor their preferences into the political decision making process.

1.4 Limitations of Minority Representation and Responsiveness

Neither Eulau and Karps’ (1977) responsiveness typologies nor Browning,

Marshall, and Tabb’s (1984) construction of political incorporation are without limitations. Eulau and Karps (1977) warn that responsiveness does not completely encompass the complexities of representation. Eulau and Karps (1977) cite the work of

Miller and Stokes (1963) who warn that representation operationalized through responsiveness is predicated on the success of constituents recruiting a representative who shares their views, the power of the constituency to withhold re-election from the representative, and the ability of constituents to evaluate the policy decisions of their representative. Further, Eulau and Karps (1977) claim that should all of these assumptions be met, responsiveness in one area, say allocational responsiveness, does not mean that a representative is also responsive in another area such as policy responsiveness. The authors’ caveats highlight the ideas noted by Loewenberg (1972)…

“Representation… is an ill-defined concept that has acquired conflicting meanings through long use. It may be employed to denote any relationship between rulers and ruled or it may connote responsiveness, authorization, legitimation, or accountability. It may be used so broadly that any political institution performs representative functions or so narrowly that only an elected legislature can do so.” (Loewenberg 1972, 12 [quoted in Eulau and Karps 1977, 238]

Browning, Marshall and Tabb’s (1984) work, while innovative, does not resolve the discrepancies between minority representation and changes in government operation.

Classic pluralism theory suggests that power is widely distributed and therefore never concentrated in the hands of one group. Therefore, once politically mobilized, pluralism predicts that all groups have “…extensive opportunities for presenting their case and for negotiations that may produce a more acceptable alternative.” (Dahl 1961, 23) However,

Nelson and Meranto (1977) and Eisinger (1982a) claim that black mayors, in particular, 18

face substantial hurdles in transforming the agenda of a city to one that recognizes and

acts on the preferences of the black constituency. The rise of African Americans as a

strong political force cannot be equated to the political plight of other ethnic groups.

Nelson and Meranto (1977) state that in contrast to other ethnic groups,

“…Black mayoral administrations will face much more severe constraints than those encountered by other ethnic administrations on their ability to respond effectively to the pressing needs of the black community” (Nelson and Meranto 1977, 335).

Nelson and Meranto (1977), Eisinger (1982a), and Keller (1978) note several factors that

complicate an African-American mayor’s ability to lead effectively including a declining

tax base, a large influx of high-cost citizens, excessive city services, the persistence of

racial conflict within the government and among city residents, and a fundamental

difference among African-American mayors who attempt to spend more money on

welfare programs than their white counterparts. Additionally, Nelson and Meranto

(1977) warn that descriptive representation is not enough because black representatives

will only take the place of white representatives in maintaining a system that has

traditionally oppressed black people.

Adolph Reed is another strong and telling voice when it comes to an open and

fearless critique of both the American political system and its players. In his 1999 text

Stirrings in the Jug, Reed (1999) casts doubts upon the very foundation of minority

representation and demands that scholars fully assess who these representatives are and

what they stand for. Reed claims that during the post-segregationist era, there was a rise

of a new group within the black community who he calls the black urban regime. In an

earlier writing, Reed (1988) claimed that the benefits of black representatives were

19 concentrated among middle class blacks partially due to the fact that black urban regimes adopted the strategies of a corporate centered city. The corporate centered city was a response by the city’s elite to redefine the city as something other than an industrial hub.

The corporate centered city focused on a number of areas, including the dispersion of shopping centers from downtown to be replaced by corporate institutions. Reed (1988) claims that by the time black leadership emerged in cities, these leaders were already incorporated into the pro-growth ideology of the corporate centered city and owed their success to its’ ideals. Reed (1988) then claims that the same dynamics that made the election of the black urban regime possible also exacerbated class divides within the black community and denied the possibility of a redistributive municipal agenda. Reed

(1999) claims that the black urban regime stood in a unique position to garner the support of the black electorate while forwarding destructive retrenchment policies that benefited a predominantly white business community. Based on this logic, Reed would expect no positive differences between the black and white administrations. In fact, this logic predicts that cities and particularly minorities within these cities will fair worse under the leadership of a black urban regime member. This would be the case because minority groups would celebrate the symbolic benefits of minority representation and either ignore or excuse the absence of substantive outcomes of the minority led regime.

Carol Swain might agree with the end result of Reed’s claim, if not totally with his underlying logic. Carol Swain (1993) finds that a representative’s political party rather than her race helps to determine the representative’s level of policy responsiveness in Congress.

The theoretical constructions of representation, minority representation, and responsiveness along with aggressive critiques build a framework to examine the benefits of minority representation and test the notion that it is in fact the best way to accomplish substantive representation for minority groups. The following text resumes an effort to explore this quandary.

1.5 Chapter Outline

This dissertation project is comprised of six chapters. In Chapter 1 I have presented a long-standing query about the meaning of representation and the role of minority representation in fulfilling the quest for inclusion and substantive representation for minority communities. Chapter 2 examines the meaning of minority representation in local government and assesses their ability to provide allocational responsiveness in areas of need to many African Americans. Chapter 2 introduces two prevailing theoretical frameworks, the resource constraint model and the political empowerment model, and evaluates the success of minority representatives in allocating limited local resources towards the needs of minority constituents. Chapter 3 begins a series of chapters that focus on the impact of minority representation in Atlanta, GA which is a city with a rich history of political activism, minority representation, and economic allure. Chapter 3 details the political history of Atlanta from the 1930s to 2009 and establishes the context within which residents established political expectations of minority representatives.

Chapter 4 tests whether these expectations have been met by examining whether there is evidence of a changing governing regime or temporary shifts in the priorities of local governments due to sustained minority representation. Chapter 5 is also based on

Atlanta, GA and examines how minority representatives provide symbolic representation to crisis issues within the African-American community. Chapter 5 analyzes whether minority representatives engage in instances of public talk as a form of symbolic representation on the HIV/AIDS crisis in African-American communities. Finally

Chapter 6 offers concluding remarks and aggregates the major findings of this project.

Additionally, Chapter 6 contains future research plans as well as how I believe this work can add to the literature on minority representation and responsiveness.

1.6 Conclusion

This project builds on the theoretical works of scholars in a myriad of fields including race and ethnicity, representation, public policy, and urban studies. The goal of this project is to examine the condition of minority representation in order to offer praise where it is working and constructive criticism in areas that need improvement. This project presumes that the best way to accomplish representation for African Americans is through African-American representatives. The following text will determine whether this assumption is correct or requires exploration of other alternatives.

Chapter 2

Minority Representation and the Redistribution of Resources

Studies that assess the impact of minority representation have yielded mixed

results. Some scholars have found that African-American elected representatives were

influential in implementing policies and programs that benefited minority residents

(Karnig and Welch 1980, Eisinger 1982a, 1982b, Browning, Marshall and Tabb 1984,

Fraga, Meier and England 1986, Lewis 1989, LaVeist 1992, Brown 2007). Other

scholars contend that African-American elected representatives were largely ineffective

in these pursuits (Brinck and Mladenka 1994; Mladenka 1989).

The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of locally elected African-

American representatives in their ability to change the political agenda of large cities and implement policies that would be beneficial to minority communities. This study tests competing theoretical frameworks that offer explanations about the role of local minority representatives. I have divided these schools of thought into two camps which I have entitled (1) the political empowerment model and (2) the constraint model. In the

forthcoming text, I argue that minority representation plays a role in distinguishing the

allocation patterns of large cities that have minority representatives compared to large

cities without minority representatives.

2.1 Background

The year 1967 began a series of electoral victories for African Americans who participated in local elections. In 1967, Carl Stokes was elected as the first African-

American mayor of Cleveland, OH and Richard Hatcher was elected mayor of Gary

Indiana. The elections of Stokes and Hatcher were followed by other prominent elections including that of Thomas Bradley of Los Angles, CA in 1973, Maynard Jackson of

Atlanta, GA in 1974, Harold Washington of Chicago, IL in 1983, David Dinkins of New

York City, NY in 1990 and Willie Herenton of Memphis, TN in 1992. These electoral victories resulted from the tireless efforts of early civil rights leaders who fought to enfranchise African Americans and use the vote to gain resources for their communities.

Prior to the 1973 election of Maynard Jackson, civil rights leader John Wesley Dobbs and

A.T. Walden used what limited opportunities afforded to the African-American community to solidify the 1946 election of Helen Douglas Mankin, a white female, to

Congress in a special election. Further, Dobb’s organization, the Atlanta Negro Voters

League, educated African Americans about the importance of the ballot in freedom schools and was largely responsible for ensuring that 6,876 African Americans were registered to vote by February 1946 and 21,244 African Americans were registered to vote by May 1946 after federal courts eliminated Georgia’s white democratic primary in

Chapman v. King. Many years later, the election of Maynard Jackson as Atlanta’s first

African-American mayor displayed the hope of a people that had been excluded from a political process that directly impacted their lives. This same election, like those before and after it, also displayed an enormous set of expectations that newly elected representatives were expected to address. These expectations included a revised method

24 for distributing municipal resources, addressing police brutality, increasing employment options for African Americans, and demanding equal pay for black and white workers.

Early mayors were successful in addressing some of these expectations including allocating more resources towards policy areas where African Americans expressed the greatest need (Karnig and Welch 1980) and increasing African-American employment

(Eisinger 1982a). However, many other constraining factors limited the attempts of early

African-American mayors in their efforts to address the preferences of the African-

American community. During this same period, cities underwent ramped deindustrialization which created a state of chronic unemployment for city residents in general and African-American residents in particular. In places like Detroit, many high- paying manufacturing jobs that were available to workers with limited education were either eliminated or relocated to suburban locations, union-free regions, or other countries

(Rifkin 1995). These jobs were replaced with service jobs that offered low-pay and limited opportunities for upward advancement. African Americans were disproportionately impacted by these changes because as a group they had been systematically excluded from the educational system, faced higher instances of poverty, and had fewer transportation options compared to whites (Wilson 1987). Due to these and other factors, city residents including middle and upper income African Americans with the ability to move away from the city did so (Sugrue 1996). This thereby weakened the city’s tax base even further. Cities were then converted into centers of hypersegregation with severely limited opportunities for advancement and overflowing need (Massey and Denton 1993). In response, many cities quickly adopted a pro-growth model that focused on courting businesses and promoting job growth (Molotch 1976,

Mollenkopf 1978). The pro-growth model rejected redistributive efforts that addressed the needs of a truly disadvantaged constituency in an effort to create a business-friendly environment.

African-American mayors of these cities faced the sum total of the aforementioned challenges in addition to distinct challenges due to their race. Nelson and

Meranto (1977) claim that in addition to the economic hardships facing many cities,

African-American mayors also combated longstanding racial resentment from white residents. Due to this resentment, white residents attempted to undermine and derail the efforts of newly empowered African-American representatives (Nelson and Meranto

1977). African-American mayors also faced unrealistic expectations from members of the African-American community who overestimated the ability of their newly elected representatives to bring about widespread change.

The following text examines two potential frameworks that help to explain the decision-making process of more recent local representatives. These representatives could act based on a political empowerment model that addresses the pervasive needs within the African-American community or these representatives could be stymied by components of the constraint model that continue to confine the city.

2.2 The Political Empowerment Model

The political empowerment model presumes that newly empowered groups will enjoy substantive and psychological benefits when members of their own group are elected to govern them. According to McClerking (n.d.), political empowerment is based on three assumptions. First, political empowerment assumes that members of one’s own

26 racial group will share a sense of linked fate with their fellow racial group members.

Second, political empowerment presumes that elected officials know what their fellow racial group members want. And finally, political empowerment assumes that elected officials will have the capacity to change the circumstances of their fellow racial group members. I will discuss each of these assumptions separately.

According to the Dawson (1994) concept of the black utility heuristic, “the more one believes one’s own life chances are linked to those of blacks as a group, the more one will consider racial group interests in evaluating alternative political choices” (Dawson

1994, 75). Dawson claims that this concept of the black utility heuristic cuts across differentiations in socioeconomic status. Therefore, one should expect that persons who operate using the black utility heuristic will act in ways that may be contrary to their individual or socioeconomic interests in order to promote the interests of the race.

African-American mayors, African-American city council members, and other locally elected or appointed African-American representatives are not exempt from this line of reasoning. Therefore, based on the assumptions of the black utility heuristic, one can expect to see evidence of revealed social preferences that are similar among the African-

American constituency and African-American elected representatives.

Clark and Ferguson (1983) and Dawson (1994) find that African-American constituents largely favor increased spending on social services. We should therefore see evidence of a desire to promote the interests of the African-American community throughout the tenure of African-American elected representatives.

[Table 2.1: Difference in African American and White Public Opinion, 1988] about here

Table 2.1 shows a range of public support for social services for African Americans and whites and affirms that blacks are generally more liberal economically than whites.

Approximately 83 percent and 90 percent of African Americans supported an increase in federal spending on public schools and care for the elderly, while only 61 percent and 73 percent of whites supported these increases. Further, Table 2.1 shows that 49 percent of

African-American constituents supported an increase federal spending on food stamps, while only 16 percent of whites shared this support.

The desire for more social service provisions among African Americans is not without cause. Barker, Jones and Tate (1999) substantiate that poverty rates among

African Americans are well over 40 percent in most regions of the country. Oliver and

Shapiro (2006) document that African Americans are paid 70 percent of the pay going towards white Americans for the same job and that African Americans are impacted in nearly every adverse health issue at higher proportions than other groups. Therefore

African-American constituents rightly favor increases in spending to address the magnitude of these issues that ravage the African-American community.

These preferences are not lost as African Americans increase in socioeconomic status. Gilliam and Whitby (1989) claim that African Americans as a group are more liberal than whites and that race continues to play a substantial role for African

Americans even as their income increases. Middle and upper income African Americans are slightly more conservative than lower-income African Americans on issues of social welfare. However, middle and upper-income African Americans are not nearly as

conservative as middle and upper-income whites. This supports the role of race and

racial experiences as a driving force for determining political preferences beyond

socioeconomic status.

Early African-American elected representatives shared many of the same

preferences as the African-American community. Gilliam and Wallin (1990) claim that

African-American mayors are more likely than white mayors to favor an increase in

spending for social policies. Keller (1978) found that early African-American mayors

attempted to spend more money on welfare programs but were faced with opposition by a

decreasing tax base, out-migration, and resistance by whites.

Many scholars have found that African-American elected representatives have

displayed the capacity to change the circumstances of their fellow racial group members.

Karnig and Welch (1980) found that cities that were lead by African-American mayors

and had high levels of African-American city council representation allotted more money

towards redistributive service areas including expenditures on public health, housing and

community development, welfare, and education compared to their white counterparts.

Brown (2007) found that the presence of an African-American mayor significantly

altered municipal spending patterns by increasing the city government’s spending on social programs. Based on the logic of Brown (2007) and other scholars, African-

American mayors appear to be operating under a different set of preferences compared to their white counterparts. This was arguably due to them substantively representing the interests of African-American communities who had been left out of the political process prior to their arrival.

Some scholars found that the presence of an African-American mayor was

associated with increases in the number of African-American influential positions in the

city. Eisinger (1982a) finds that cities with a large African-American population and an

African-American mayor show higher rates of African-American administrators,

professionals, and affirmative action effort scores. Lewis (1989) finds that African-

American mayors were associated with increases in the percentages of African-American police. Fraga, Meier, and England (1986) and Browning, Marshall and Tabb (1984) find that minority representation combined with membership in the governing coalition leads to policy responsiveness in administrative decisions including the hiring of police officers, educators, and other civil servants. However, Brink and Mlandenka (1994) and

Mlandenka (1989) found that minority representation on city councils have a greater effect in the hiring of minorities for administrative, professional, and total jobs than does the mayor.

Other scholars have extended the questions of minority representation to the state and national level. Haynie (2001) found that minority political empowerment in state legislatures is associated with increases in expenditures for education, health and social services. Owens (2005) and Preuhs (2007) found the same to be true regarding welfare.

At the national level, Gay (2002) finds that the race of the congressional representative positively affects the behavior of African Americans but negatively affects both the attitude and the behavior of whites, thereby adding to the literature on the impact of race beyond city borders.

2.3 The Constraint Model

Locally elected officials are in a difficult position. That position is even more

difficult for African-American elected representatives. The constraint model presumes that minority elected officials face a unique set of obstacles due to limitations of local governments, racial tension in the city, and the general decline of the city’s economic well-being.

Unlike the national or state government, cities are created and regulated by their state. Cities derive their power and authority from their state’s constitution and must share authority with state or national governments in a number of policy areas (Briffault

1990). Craw (2006) finds that social welfare spending by local governments is directed by a vertical model of intergovernmental relationships. In this model, Craw (2006) shows that national and state agendas that address social welfare are executed at the local level. Local governments then act with much less autonomy on social welfare policy than national or state governments. Gerber and Hopkins (2009) find that while local governments are severely limited in their ability to change political preferences within their cities, they are able to make substantive changes in public safety, particularly resources that are allocated for police and fire protection.

Paul Peterson offers one of the more resounding voices when helping to define the limitations of local government. In his 1981 book City Limits, Paul Peterson claims that cities cannot afford to engage in redistributive politics. Peterson defines redistributive politics as policies that benefit low-income residents but are thought to negatively impact the local economy. Peterson claims that municipal funding of education, housing, public health programs, and welfare are examples of redistributive

policy. These are also many of the same policies that African Americans favor (Clark

and Ferguson 1981, Greenstone and Peterson 1973).

According to Peterson (1981), cities that engage in redistributive policies risk

losing mobile capital to other cities that do not make the same types of demands of the

business sector. Peterson argues that redistributive policies attract low-income residents

into the city and gives them an incentive to stay in the city while subsequently

discouraging private investment. Peterson concludes that cities should only engage in actions that promote economic growth or provide basic services to city residents.

According to Peterson, redistributive policies should be left to the national government.

According to Nelson and Meranto (1977), African-American elected representatives and particularly African-American mayors, face an additional set of obstacles. African-American mayors are expected to do much with shrinking resources, a disproportionate share of high-cost citizens, and racial resentment from the white community. Kraus and Swanstrom (2001) argue that African-American mayors are often elected in cities that are declining in absolute population and relevance. These same cities have a high number of poor residents and a lower per-capita income when compared to other cities within their region. Like Nelson and Meranto (1977), Kraus and

Swanstrom (2001) claim that African-American mayors face severe challenges in their ability to deliver substantive benefits to their constituents. Their victory in being elected mayor is then relegated to a hollow prize. This has lead some scholars to claim that while

African-American mayors are not completely ineffective, their cumulative impact on changing the political arena to favor or to at least include the preferences of African-

American communities has been small (Owens and Rich 2003, Hajnal 2001).

Both Mlandenka (1989) and Brown (2007) examine the role of mayors and their

ability to implement policy in the city. Both authors show that institutional variables

make huge differences in determining what policies are implemented in the city. Brown

(2007) claims that cities with a mayor-council system should behave in an opposite way

from cities with a council-manager system. In the former system, the mayor establishes the general direction for the city. He or she has the power to construct the city’s budget and veto legislation arising from the city council. Brown (2007) claims that mayor-

council systems are subject to the “potentially incendiary nature of politics in the area”

(Brown 2007, 25). These political battles are such that mayors can be held accountable

for supportive or antagonist policies that are directed towards lower-income residents.

This stands in direct contrast to the council-manager system where the city council is

responsible for the general direction of the city and the municipal budget. City council

members select a city manager. The city manager serves at the pleasure of the city council and reports to this body. City council members hold the power to terminate the city manager for failure to comply with the direction of the council at any time. This allows city council members to avoid individual responsibility for supportive or antagonist policies that are directed towards lower-income residents. Therefore institutional factors along with lingering racial resentment and economic woes for the city can constrain the ability of African-American representatives in providing substantive representation that address the needs of their African-American constituents.

2.4 Methods and Data Analysis

So how have African-American elected representatives performed amidst high

expectations and a distinct African-American agenda that favors increases in social

services? Do African-American elected representatives still face a unique set of obstacles that impede attempts to carry out a social service based agenda? What are the unique roles of mayors and city council members in this query?

The following text examines these questions by evaluating how cities that are led by African-American elected representatives differ from those led by non-African-

American elected representatives on issues of municipal spending. The following text also analyzes patterns in spending in order to examine the revealed preferences and potential constraints of minority representatives.

2.4.1 Stating the Hypotheses

Redistributive spending areas are of particular interest in this study as they provide an opportunity for African-American representatives to provide substantive representation to African-American constituents in the form of allocational responsiveness. Additionally, redistributive spending offers African-American representatives an opportunity to redefine the purpose of the city and challenge the notion that the city serves only as a haven for capitalist expansion (Mollenkopf 1978, Molotch

1976). Peterson (1981) claims that local spending on redistributive areas amounts to disaster. Nelson (2006) offers a different perspective on this issue. Nelson (2006) claims that redistributive polices are an important area of public decision making for the

African-American community. Nelson (2006) claims that redistributive policies reflect

34 demands by the African-American community for public assistance in housing, social welfare, and health care. Further redistributive spending displays the ability of representatives to “act in the interest of those they represent in a manner that is responsive to them” (Pitken 1967, 209), thereby operationalizing the concept of substantive representation. Therefore, we should see positive differences in redistributive spending between cities with African-American elected representatives and cities without

African-American elected representatives.

H1: Cities with African-American elected representatives should allocate a greater proportion of resources for redistributive services.

The model of municipal spending in redistributive areas should also reflect the level of need in the city. Increases in the percent of poor citizens should also increase the proportion of municipal funds that are directed towards redistributive programs.

Therefore, I expect that cities that experience an increase in poverty and a greater

African-American population will allocate more money towards redistributive service areas in an effort to address the needs of its citizenry.

H2: Increases in city poverty should be positively associated with increased funding for redistributive services.

H3: Increases in the African-American population should be positively associated with increased funding for redistributive services.

Finally, Mlandenka (1989) and Brown (2007) show that the institutional structure of a municipal governing system matters. The authors agree that the mayor-council system affords more control to mayors than the council-manager system. Therefore, I

argue that if African-American elected representatives desire and have the ability to

support redistributive funding initiatives, then it should take place when there is both

minority representation in the mayoral position and a mayor-council form of government.

H4: Cities that are governed by both a mayor-council system and an African- American mayor should be positively associated with increased funding for redistributive services.

2.4.2 Data and Method for an Analysis of Minority Representation on Redistributive

Expenditures

This study examines the impact of minority representation on redistributive

spending patterns. I examine this research question using financial, representation, and

socioeconomic variables in 1997. This time period was chosen in order to build upon the

work of Brown (2007) which evaluated the impact of minority representation on

redistributive spending from 1972 through 1988. This time period serves as an essential

next step towards completing an analysis of the impact of minority representation over

time.

Urban fiscal policy on redistributive spending and city revenues are compiled by the Census Bureau of the U.S. Department of Commerce and are available in the 1997

Annual Survey of Governments: Finance Statistics. I calculate the percent of total

expenditures that are allocated towards housing, public health, and welfare services as

measures of redistributive policy areas. The level of analysis is by city government. I

also collect supplementary data to test whether the political empowerment model or the constraint model help to explain variations in redistributive spending patterns for cities.

Data on the number of African-American mayors and African-American city council

36 representatives come from the National Roster of African American Elected Officials. I compile data from U.S. Census and U.S. County and City data books in order to gather information on economic and demographic factors for each city. Finally, I compiled the total number of city council representatives from the Municipal Form of Government

Surveys and the International City Managers Association’s Municipal Year Book.

There are three dependent variables of interest in this analysis. These variables are the percent of total expenditures that are allocated for housing, public health, and welfare. Housing describes the proportion of money that has been dedicated to the construction, operation and support of housing and redevelopment projects. Examples of activities included in this category are funds for constructing, maintaining, and planning public housing developments, rent subsidies, and programs that promote home ownership. Public health describes the proportion of money that is allocated towards the provision of services that conserve and improve the public’s health. Examples of public health programs included in this category are immunization programs, community visiting nurses, and outpatient clinics. Welfare describes the proportion of money that has been allocated for the provision, construction, and maintenance of nursing homes and other institutions that serve veterans and the needy. Examples include indigent care facilities and orphanages.

The percent of total expenditures on housing, public health, and welfare are constructed by dividing local expenditures in each redistributive category by the city’s total expenditures and multiplying it by 100 in order to convert it into a percentage. If minority representatives allocated a significantly greater proportion of the city’s resources towards these three redistributive areas, this would suggest that minority

representatives implement different preferences and have the ability to focus on the needs

of residents who require these services.

African-American mayoral presence is measured using a dummy variable that indicates whether a city had an African-American mayor in 1997. Cities with an African-

American mayor are assigned a numeric value of one while cities without an African-

American mayor are assigned a value of zero.

African-American city council representation is measured as the proportion of all city council seats that are occupied by an African-American city council member. In this study, city council membership encompasses all forms of municipal councils. This takes cities with traditional city councils, commissions, trustee, and aldermanic governing styles into account. The measure for city council is constructed by first compiling the number of African-American council members in 1997 and dividing it by the total number of city council positions. This proportion was then multiplied by 100 in order to convert it to a percentage.

Mayor-council system is a dummy variable that measures government structure.

Cities with the mayor-council system are given a score of one, while cities without a mayor-council system are given scores of zero.

Population is a variable that reports the population of each city using estimates from the 1990 U.S. Census. Cities had to have a population of at least 50,000 to be included in this study. Percent African American is a variable that describes the percent of the city’s total population that are African American. Percent Poverty measures the

percent of the city’s total population that are poor. The variable median income reports

the median income of each city using estimates from the 1990 U.S. Census. Proportion

38 expenditure lag reports the proportion of total expenditures that was allocated to each redistributive area in 1993. These variables are useful in order to test the role of demographics, socioeconomic changes, and past spending in explaining redistributive spending.

I use descriptive analysis, a difference of means analysis, and linear regression to assess the impact of minority representation on local redistributive spending. The descriptive analysis is used to examine the frequency and distribution of both dependent and independent variables (see Table 2.2). A difference of means analysis is used to determine what, if any, significant differences arise in the average funding patterns between cities with and without minority representation. Finally, I utilize a linear regression model to estimate the impact of minority representation on the percent of total expenditures that are allocated towards redistributive services.

2.5 Political Empowerment Model: The Role of Minority Representation

A difference of means test reveals that cities with African-American elected representation allocate money in different ways than do cities without African-American elected representation. The difference of means analysis shows that cities with African-

American mayors as well as cities with African-American city council members allot a significantly greater proportion of city expenditures to public health and welfare services.

[Table 2.4: Difference of Means Analysis] about here

This same analysis shows that institutional structure plays a role in the expenditure decisions for cities. On average, cities that operate using a mayor-council system allot a

39 greater proportion of resources towards public health and welfare expenditures compared to cities without a mayor-council system. Finally, cities with both an African-American mayor and a mayor-council form of government allot a greater percentage of the municipal budget towards public health and public welfare.

While the difference of means analysis would suggest that having an African-

American mayor and African-American city council members would independently increase the proportion of total expenditures that are allocated towards redistributive polices, the regression model does not entirely support this conclusion. The regression model shows that when minority representation, institutional, and socioeconomic variables are combined into a formal model of redistributive expenditures, having an

African-American mayor in 1997 does not help to explain variations in the proportion of expenditures towards redistributive services. However, the regression model does show that the presence of minority city council members helps to explain variations in the proportion of expenditures for welfare.

2.6 Political Empowerment Model: The Role of the City Council

African-American city council members help to explain a portion of the variation we see in the proportion of welfare expenditures. When comparing average expenditures on welfare, cities with African-American city council membership allot a significantly greater proportion of total expenditures towards welfare services than do cities without

African-American city council membership. These results also stand the test of a linear regression model. On average, cities with African-American city council representation

40 allot 0.01 percent more towards welfare expenditures than cities without African-

American city council representation.

[Table 2.5: Regression Results for Redistributive Expenditures] about here

This finding supports the results from Mlandenka (1989) and Brink and Mlandenka

(1994) which encouraged scholars to evaluate the role of city council representation in forwarding the interests of minority groups. It also supports concerns by both Mlandenka

(1989) and Brown (2007) who suggested that mayors may be less likely to support controversial public policy due to fear of public backlash during the next election. City council members enjoy less of the political spotlight, thereby allowing them to support controversial public policy without the fear of being punished during the next election cycle.

2.7 The Constraint Model: The Role of Poverty and Past Spending

Components of the constraint model also play a significant role in explaining the proportion of local resources that are expended towards redistributive policy services. A linear regression model reveals that, an increase in poverty is associated with a small but significant increase in spending for housing expenditures. Conversely, an increase in poverty is also associated with a small but significant decrease in public welfare.

Similarly, I reveal that expenditures patterns in 1993 are associated with positive increases in each expenditure area. This should be no surprise, as a city’s past expenditures play a significant role in determining how money will be allocated in future

years. These constraint variables suggest that fiscal, demographic, and economic constraints play significant roles in determining how municipal resources are allocated.

2.8 Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter was to evaluate how minority representatives have performed amidst high expectations and a distinct agenda by the minority community.

This chapter was also designed to explore whether minority representatives still face a unique set of obstacles that impede their attempts to carry out a social service based agenda. I summarized the main schools of thought on this issue into two potential models of behavior by minority representatives. The political empowerment model assumes that minority elected officials share the preferences of the minority constituency and have the ability to implement a liberal agenda that will satisfy their needs. Conversely, the constraint model claims that minority elected officials face a unique set of obstacles due to limitations of local governments, racial tension in the city, and the general decline of the city’s economic well-being.

I examine these questions specifically for African Americans and find that

African-American representation at the local level matters to some degree nearly forty years after the first African-American mayors were elected in Cleveland, Ohio and Gary,

Indiana. I find that there are distinct differences in the average proportion of expenditures that are allocated towards redistributive services. Cities with African-

American mayors, African-American city council representatives, and a mayor-council governing system routinely allocate a greater portion of the municipal resources towards public health and welfare compared to cities without minority representatives.

I find that the presence of African-American city council members, rather than the

presence of African-American mayors, helps to explain the funding decisions for welfare

even when other political empowerment and constraint model factors enter the equation.

Unlike mayors, city council representatives can take more risks by voting as a group in

order to avoid the threat of individual punishment during the next election. For this

reason, only the proportion of minority representatives on the city council functions as a contributing factor in explaining allocation patterns for welfare. These findings reiterate the need to explore the roles of local mayors and city council representation in more detail in order to determine how these two branches of local government work together or in opposition when constructing local policy.

There is still much more work to be done in assessing the age old question of

minority representation and its’ impact on substantive benefits for city residents. The

take away message here is that cities with African-American representation operate in a

different fashion compared to cities without African-American representation. This

could be because African-American representatives find ways to act on the political

preferences of their African-American constituents. Conversely, African-American

representatives could simply be responding to the dire economic state under which many

cities that they govern suffer from.

Whites African Americans Supports increased federal spending on: Social Security 53 82 Food Stamps 16 49 Fighting AIDS 71 83 Protecting the environment 64 58 Financial aid to college students 39 72 Assistance to the unemployed 24 65 Child care 53 78 Public schools 61 83 Care for the elderly 73 90 The homeless 61 90 The war on drugs 74 82 *Derived from Table 8.1 in Dawson (1994) Behind the Mule

Table 2.1: Difference in African American and White Public Opinion, 1988

Dependent Variables N Mean St. Dev. Min Max Housing 217 5.21 5.79 0 32.74 Public Health 217 2.30 5.11 0 60.43 Welfare 217 0.86 2.55 0 22.95

Constraint Variables N Mean St. Dev. Min Max Population 217 318,187 605,896 69,490 7,380,906 Percent Poor 217 17.52 14.19 2.63 157.58 Percent African American 217 19.62 18.86 0.16 83.41 Median Income 217 47,820 12,480 26,172 101,588

Political Empowerment Variables Frequency Percentage

Presence of an African-American Mayor African-American Mayor 33 15.21 Non-African-American Mayor 184 84.79

Political Empowerment Variables Frequency Percentage

Proportion of African-American City Council Members 0 93 42.86 5 2 0.92 10 10 4.61 15 20 9.22 20 20 9.22 25 15 6.91 30 7 3.23 35 12 5.53 40 9 4.15 45 10 4.61 50 2 0.92 55 2 0.92 60 5 2.30 65 3 1.38 70 3 1.38 75 1 0.46 85 1 0.46 100 2 0.92

Table 2.2: Summary Statistics

Political Empowerment Variables Frequency Percentage

Presence of an African-American City Council President African-American Council President 17 7.83 Non-African-American Council President 200 92.17

Governing Form Mayor-Council 81 37.33 Not Mayor – Council 136 62.67

African-American Mayor & Governing Form Mayor-Council 20 9.22 No Mayor-Council 197 90.78 ______

Data Sources: Census Bureau; 1997 Annual Survey of Governments: Finance Statistics; National Roster of African American Elected Officials; Municipal Form of Government Surveys and the International City Managers Association’s Municipal Year Book.

Table 2.2: Summary Statistics (Continued)

Proportion Expenditures Mean SD P Value Housing African-American Mayor 4.48 3.31 0.44 Non- African-American Mayor 5.34 6.13

African-American Council 4.74 4.83 0.17 No African-American Council 5.83 6.85

Mayor-Council Form 3.98 3.91 0.02 No Mayor-Council Form 5.93 6.57

African-American Mayor x Mayor-Council 4.22 3.06 0.43 African-American Mayor x 5.31 6.00 No Mayor-Council Public Health African-American Mayor 4.58 10.71 0.01 Non- African-American Mayor 1.59 3.12

African-American Council 3.15 6.55 0.00 No African-American Council 1.16 1.31

Mayor-Council Form 3.57 7.62 0.00 No Mayor-Council Form 1.54 2.43

African-American Mayor x Mayor-Council 6.51 13.49 0.00 African-American Mayor x 1.87 3.03 No Mayor-Council Welfare African-American Mayor 2.48 4.91 0.00 Non- African-American Mayor 0.57 1.71

African-American Council 1.39 3.25 0.00 No African-American Council 0.17 0.51

Mayor-Council Form 1.55 3.71 0.00 No Mayor-Council Form 0.46 1.34

African-American Mayor x Mayor-Council 3.18 5.98 0.00 African-American Mayor x 0.63 1.76 No Mayor-Council *Data Sources: Census Bureau; 1997 Annual Survey of Governments: Finance Statistics; National Roster of African American Elected Officials; Municipal Form of Government Surveys and the International City Managers Association’s Municipal Year Book. *The entries in column 1 are indicate the average percent of total expenditures based on variables from the political empowerment model. The entries in column 2 are the standard errors associated with the mean values in column 1. P values < .10 are significant.

Table 2.3: Difference of Means Analysis

Proportion Expenditures Mean SD P Value Population African-American Mayor 348,438 252,703 0.76 Non- African-American Mayor 312,762 649,576

African-American Council 413,769 777,206 0.01 No African-American Council 190,744 159,968

Mayor-Council Form 484,067 939,586 0.00 No Mayor-Council Form 219,391 194,624

African-American Mayor x Mayor-Council 401,992 238,037 0.52 African-American Mayor x 309,679 631,100 No Mayor-Council

Percent Poverty African-American Mayor 24.27 24.83 0.01 Non- African-American Mayor 16.31 10.97

African-American Council 20.21 17.49 0.00 No African-American Council 13.93 6.44

Mayor-Council Form 20.66 18.77 0.01 No Mayor-Council Form 15.65 10.20

African-American Mayor x Mayor-Council 27.24 31.11 0.00 African-American Mayor x 16.53 10.84 No Mayor-Council

Percent African American African-American Mayor 40.23 20.56 0.00 Non- African-American Mayor 15.92 15.99

African-American Council 29.22 18.97 0.00 No African-American Council 6.81 8.00

Mayor-Council Form 28.46 21.24 0.00 No Mayor-Council Form 14.35 15.07

African-American Mayor x Mayor-Council 43.59 23.18 0.00 African-American Mayor x 17.18 16.60 No Mayor-Council *Data Sources: Census Bureau; 1997 Annual Survey of Governments: Finance Statistics; National Roster of African American Elected Officials; Municipal Form of Government Surveys and the International City Managers Association’s Municipal Year Book. *The entries in column 1 are indicate the average percent of total expenditures based on variables from the political empowerment model. The entries in column 2 are the standard errors associated with the mean values in column 1. P values < .10 are significant.

Table 2.3: Difference of Means Analysis (continued)

Proportion Expenditures Mean SD P Value Median Income African-American Mayor 41,723 8,923 0.00 Non- African-American Mayor 48,931 12,731

African-American Council 44,346 10,530 0.00 No African-American Council 52,340 13,394

Mayor-Council Form 42,591 8,720 0.00 No Mayor-Council Form 50,879 13,332

African-American Mayor x Mayor-Council 40,199 10,031 0.00 African-American Mayor x 48,605 12,463 No Mayor-Council *Data Sources: Census Bureau; 1997 Annual Survey of Governments: Finance Statistics; National Roster of African American Elected Officials; Municipal Form of Government Surveys and the International City Managers Association’s Municipal Year Book. *The entries in column 1 are indicate the average percent of total expenditures based on variables from the political empowerment model. The entries in column 2 are the standard errors associated with the mean values in column 1. P values < .10 are significant.

Table 2.3: Difference of Means Analysis (continued)

Health Housing Welfare

African-American Mayor 0.06 -0.17 0.20 (1.57) (0.78) (0.30)

African-American Council -0.01 0.00 0.01 (0.03) (0.02) (0.003)

Mayor-Council 0.09 -0.84 -0.10 (1.48) (0.53) (0.18)

African-American Mayor x 0.88 0.02 0.41 Mayor-Council (0.87) (1.06) (0.39)

Population -4.28e-08 -2.37e-07 2.16e-07 (3.08e-07) (1.65e-07) (1.48e-07)

Percent Poverty 0.01 0.02 -0.01 (0.02) (0.01) (0.003)

Percent African American 0.00 0.01 -0.01 (0.02) (0.02) (0.01)

Median Income 0.00 -0.50e-04 4.64e-06 (0.00) (0.23e-04) (4.93e-06)

Proportion Expenditure 0.75 0.68 0.88 Lag (0.27) (0.06) (0.10)

Constant -0.57 3.77 -0.24 (1.04) (1.33) (0.27) N 212 212 212 R-Squared 0.66 0.64 0.86 ______*Data Sources: Census Bureau; 1997 Annual Survey of Governments: Finance Statistics; National Roster of African American Elected Officials; Municipal Form of Government Surveys and the International City Managers Association’s Municipal Year Book. *The estimates in columns 1, 2, and 3 are regression estimates for each dependent variable. Robust standard errors are in parenthesis. All tests are two-tailed. * P values < 0.10 are noted in bold.

Table 2.4: Regression Results for Redistributive Expenditures

Chapter 3

Becoming Politically Incorporated – The Atlanta Story

In the previous chapter, I examined the impact of minority representation on allocational responsiveness in social policy decisions that began to address the needs of many members in the African-American community. I argued that cities with minority representatives should allocate a greater portion of municipal resources in order to address the distinct needs of their African-American constituents. I found two things of immediate importance. First, cities with minority representation and mayor-council governing systems allocate a greater portion of their expenditures towards public health and welfare services than do cities without minority representatives. Second, multiple elements, including past spending, African-American city council representation, percent poverty, and median income, help to explain different types of redistributive spending.

In this chapter, I explore the role of the mayor as a change agent that works to redefine the structure of how municipal resources are allocated. Recall that Pitken defines political representation as “acting in the interest of the represented in a manner responsive to them” (Pitken 1967, 209-210). Recall also that Browning, Marshall, and

Tabb’s (1984) theory of political incorporation inherently describes the emergence of a new governing regime and ensures that the needs of the African-American constituency will be included in the political decision making process. The theory of political incorporation is limited because it does not provide a mechanism for scholars to measure when it has occurred. Instead, Browning, Marshall and Tabb’s construction of political incorporation relies on a combination of descriptive representation and membership in

the dominant governing coalition. I argue that the spirit behind political incorporation

hinges on a structural change in the way that cities operate and the manner by which

representatives determine whose needs to address as well as whose needs to ignore. The following text conceptualizes political incorporation in this manner. This chapter analyses the benefits of political incorporation by documenting the political and racial

history of Atlanta, Georgia. In addition to be mentioned by Browning, Marshall, and

Tabb (1986) as a city that has experienced high levels of political incorporation, Atlanta

has both a long history of mass minority mobilization and minority representation. This

chapter details the process by which African Americans amassed political power and

helps to establish the expectations that many African-American constituents held once

that they achieved this feat.

3.1 A City Too Busy to Hate: William B. Hartsfield - Mayor of Atlanta 1937-1962

William B. Hartsfield served as mayor of Atlanta, Georgia for a total of 24 years

(1937-1941 then 1942-1962). Hartsfield began his political career as an alderman for the

30th ward. After serving on the Board of Aldermen for ten years, Hartsfield was elected

to the state legislature where he served for four years. Hartsfield won his first term as

Atlanta’s mayor in 1936. Upon taking office in January of 1937, Hartsfield outlined what he saw as the city’s problems. In 1937, the city of Atlanta was 13 million dollars in debt

and near bankruptcy. Hartsfield noted that the city had an inefficient system of managing

services and a poorly operating traffic system. Additionally, the city was responsible for

an unprecedented share of service costs that should have been handled by the county.

Hartsfield promised to overhaul the police department and create a new director of public

safety in order to manage the police, fire, and traffic departments (Martin 1978).

During the time of Hartsfield’s reign, Atlanta operated under a weak mayor form

of government. The mayor was elected every two years but could serve an unlimited

number of terms. The mayor served as the city’s chief administrative officer but had

limited appointive power. The mayor could appoint all Board of Aldermen committees

and veto ordinances passed by these committees (League of Women Voters 1956). The

office of mayor was not designed to be the chief executive office of the city. Instead,

Atlanta mayors were to share the power to direct the city with the legislative branch of

local government. In addition to a mayor, Atlanta had a bicameral council. The

bicameral council was composed of twenty-four councilmen and twelve aldermen. There

were two councilmen for each of Atlanta’s twelve wards. Councilmen had to be elected

every two years. There were twelve aldermen, one for each ward. The aldermen had to

be elected every three years.

Hartsfield was able to achieve the power and influence of a strong mayor despite

Atlanta’s weak mayor governing system and crafted a unique partnership with the business community. One of Hartsfield’s most notable supporters was Robert Woodruff, former childhood friend and owner of the Coca-Cola Company. Hartsfield further consolidated his power as mayor by seizing the powers of aldermen and city councilmen.

Early on in his tenure as Atlanta’s mayor, Hartsfield instituted a budget law which served to dry up the patronage system that aldermen and city councilmen relied upon.

Hartsfield, with the support of friends in the business community, helped to institute a civil service system which eliminated the appointment power of precinct politicians

(Martin 1978, Stone 1989, Bayor 1996). Later in his political career, Hartsfield would be

instrumental in creating a biracial governing coalition that included middle class blacks

and key members of the business community.

Hartsfield’s legacy as promoter of the slogan “Atlanta, A City too Busy to Hate,”

and the engine of a biracial coalition between blacks and whites in Atlanta only applies to

the latter half of his political career (Williams 2000). Hartsfield began his political career

as a staunch segregationist who, for example, opposed creating a Federal Fair

Employment Practices Commission and asked the U.S. House of Representatives’ Un-

American Activities Committee to investigate the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for suspicions of communist activity

(Williams 2000, Stone 1989). Hartsfield’s initial years as mayor systematically excluded

the concerns of blacks from the local agenda. Hartsfield was primarily concerned with

eliminating cronyism and police corruption, improving the quality of public schools,

building infrastructure to support the transit system, making Atlanta an aviation

powerhouse and amending the city charter to reduce the influence of ward politics

(Williams 2000). It is important to note that while these measures were good for the city

and for the well-being of city residents, the system of segregation ensured that the

benefits of these programs only benefited white citizens and white sections of the city.

Hartsfield systematically ignored the pervasive disenfranchisement, lack of housing, and

acts of police brutality suffered by blacks in Atlanta. His attitude changed in response to

the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1944 Smith v. Allwright case and the 1946 Chapman v.

King case.

In the 1944 Smith v. Allwright case, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas’ all white

Democratic Primary was unconstitutional. Two years later, federal courts eliminated

Georgia’s white Democratic Primary in Chapman v. King. (Bayor 1996) Both African

Americans and Hartsfield recognized that these rulings would forever change race relations in Atlanta. African Americans, who found ways around formal barriers to political participation, used the 1944 and 1946 rulings as leverage towards becoming members of Atlanta’s governing coalition (Bayor 1996). In a 1944 comment, Hartsfield expresses his assessment of the court’s ruling to his friend Herbert Jenkins….

”… what the courts have done is give the black man in Atlanta the ballot. And for your information, the ballot is a front ticket for any-damn wheres he wants to sit, if he knows how to use it.” Quote taken from Bayor 1996, 21

In this statement Hartsfield shows that he recognized the potential political power of the

African-American community and that they could no longer be ignored in the political

decision making process.

3.1.1 The Atlanta Biracial Coalition

The Atlanta biracial coalition did not emerge overnight or without a strategic set

of pros and cons for the parties involved. The African-American middle class played a

unique role in Atlanta politics which created a path for them to assist the white business

elite in governing Atlanta. Stone (1989) describes what became known as the Atlanta

biracial governing coalition as the era of “negotiated settlements.” The premise of both

the Atlanta biracial coalition and its underlying structure of negotiated settlements are

based on private negotiations by coalition insiders on important public policy decisions.

Coalition insiders included the white-elite business community, the African-American

elite members of the middle class and the mayor who served as a mediator.4 Stone

(1989) explains that both the African-American middle class and the white business-elite had clear reasons for choosing to use negotiated settlements opposed to divisive applications of political pressure. African Americans wanted to avoid white violence and attain membership into the halls of governance. A partnership with the white business community could help to reduce white violence. The white business community wanted to forward their political agenda but lacked numerical strength to pass their proposals. A partnership with the African-American middle class could give them access to the

African-American vote.

Just as the form of the Atlanta biracial coalition was not inevitable, membership by the African-American middle-class in said coalition was not inevitable either. African

Americans had long-established institutions that capitalized on what little political freedoms they had, and there was indeed a very long period of little political freedom for blacks in Georgia. A Democratic-controlled legislature instituted an at-large voting system in 1871 which demanded that all city voters determine the outcome of the city council. This effectively kept African Americans out of political office until the 1950s, as whites were unwilling to vote for African Americans. The state of Georgia also instituted a revised form of poll taxes and disenfranchisement laws to eliminate the black vote. An 1873 ordinance provided that Atlanta residents could vote only if their municipal taxes for the current and prior years were paid in full. This eliminated most potential black voters. Additionally in 1908, a new Georgia law mandated that Georgia voters own property and pass a literacy test in order to vote in general elections. Later,

4 Alternatively, Atlanta could have chosen divisive application of political power. Stone (1989) describes this as a plan where public policy proposals would be aired to the public thereby allowing any person to have a say in the public policy process but reduce the likelihood that any policy would be chosen. 56

the state instituted a grandfather clause for poor Georgia whites who did not own

property and could not pass the state mandated literacy tests. However, the most effective

tool to limit the black vote was the use of the all white primary. The all white primary, which was authorized in 1892, made it illegal for African Americans to select who would represent the Democratic Party. This is important because the Democratic Party dominated local elections and faced little to no competition by the Republican Party which had been on the decline since the establishment of at-large voting. The winner of the Democratic primary would inevitably win the general election. Therefore, blacks

were prevented from selecting who could potentially represent them and later limited in

their ability to vote in the general election (Bayor 1996).

Atlanta blacks, however, used their capacity to create political institutions and

spatial concentration as leverage to attain resources from the local government. As early

as 1919, black leaders began systematic and sustained efforts to secure the right to vote

for African Americans. Black institutions like the National Advancement of Colored

People (NAACP) and the Urban League branches in Atlanta held massive voter

registration drives. In 1932, the NAACP established citizenship schools to teach blacks

about registration, voting, government powers and politics (Bayor 1996). In 1936, the

Atlanta Civic and Political League, established by civil rights leader John Wesley Dobbs,

began efforts to register ten thousand voters in order to address issues that were important

to the African-American community. The issues included equal salaries for black and

white teachers, hiring of black police and firemen, employment of black doctors at city

hospitals, and the creation of parks and playgrounds in black neighborhoods (Bayor 1996,

20).

Black Atlanta residents tested their political power in 1942 and 1946 and worked

to solidify their status as political players in Atlanta politics. Black Atlanta residents

displayed political unity in one of the only venues in which they were allowed to vote, a

1942 special election for mayor and later a 1946 special election for congress. Black

Atlanta residents voted in a 1942 special election to replace Mayor Roy LeCraw who

resigned from office. They voted for the former chairman of the aldermanic police

committee, Dan Bridges, with the hopes that Bridges would help to reduce police

violence. Black Atlanta residents strategically chose to vote against Hartsfield, as

Hartsfield had ignored their demands and forwarded the plight of segregation and

isolation of the black community during his first two terms as mayor. Hartsfield would

soon change his mind after national challenges to segregation and another example in

1946 of African Americans’ emerging political power in Atlanta.

In 1946, Atlanta blacks voted in a special congressional election to fill the

unexpired term of Representative Robert Ramspeck. Atlanta’s black leaders were

strategic about when to announce who they supported in order not to hurt his/her chances

for election. Atlanta’s black leaders announced that blacks supported Helen Douglas

Mankin after the last radio news program ended and the newspaper had gone to press.

Mankin won the race because of the support from the black community. The Mankin

race would demonstrate to the nation, the state of Georgia, and Atlanta’s Mayor

Hartsfield that Atlanta’s blacks were a political force that would not back down (Bayor

1996, 21).

By 1946, black Atlanta residents had displayed their political power on more than one occasion and had mastered the bloc voting method. The number of black registered

58 voters in Atlanta had climbed from a low of only 715 in 1918 to 6,876 in February of

1946, and 21,244 by May of 1946 after the passage of Chapman v. King (Bayor 1996,

18). The black community had a firm hold on the political power that was afforded to them but still lacked the basic services that white communities enjoyed. Black leaders agreed to resume their demands for the hiring of black policemen, opening a fire station with black firemen in black areas of Atlanta, securing parks and playgrounds for black children, public housing, private land and upgrading black city workers (Bayor 1996, 26).

Hartsfield met with the Atlanta Negro Voters League and agreed to many of their demands. Hartsfield won his re-election for Atlanta’s mayor with 50.1 percent of the total vote. Hartsfield received 82.5 percent of the black vote and a majority of the votes from upper and upper-middle class whites (Bayor 1996). Thus the biracial coalition was formed. These groups would help to determine Atlanta’s political future for the next two decades.

However, while Hartsfield worked to forge a relationship with the increasingly powerful African-American community, he made sure to retain white political dominance in Atlanta (Martin 1978). In 1938, 1943, and 1947, Hartsfield attempted to annex portions of the city that housed the educated and affluent white middle-class that had been migrating to the suburbs. Hartsfield’s intentions were clear (Martin 1978). In a

1942 letter regarding attempts to annex the predominantly white and affluent community of Buckhead, Hartsfield wrote….

“The most important thing to remember cannot be publicized in the press or made the subject of public speeches. Our Negro population is growing by leaps and bounds. They stay right in the city limits and grow by taking more white territory inside Atlanta. Out- migration is good, white home-owning citizens. With the federal government insisting on political recognition of Negroes in local affairs, the time is not far distant when they will become a potent political force in Atlanta if our white citizens are just going to move out and give it to them. This is not to stir race prejudice because all of us want to deal fairly with them; but do you want to hand them political control of Atlanta?” Quoted from Martin 1978, 42

During Hartsfield’s tenure as Atlanta’s mayor he remained loyal to his core constituency,

the business community and the white middle-class. Hartsfield did not institute rapid or

substantive equality for African Americans in Atlanta. Instead, he offered a moderate

tone in race relations. Elite members of the middle-class African-American community

achieved a seat at the table and a role, albeit a junior role, in the political decision making

process during the Hartsfield administration. Based on this new biracial coalition,

Atlanta experienced the gradual dismantling of visible signs of Jim Crow segregation and managed a transition to desegregation that was far more peaceful than that of other southern cities during this time.

3.2 Pro-Growth Politics: Ivan Allen Jr. - Mayor of Atlanta 1962- 1970

Ivan Allen succeeded Hartsfield as mayor of Atlanta. Allen served in a number of

political appointments before becoming mayor of Atlanta. Most notably, Allen was

elected President of the Chamber of Commerce in 1961were he instituted the Six Point

Program which would guide Atlanta during his eight years in office. The Six Point

Program focused on a pro-growth agenda for Atlanta. Elements of the Six Point Program

included: keeping public schools open after the Brown v. Board of Education case in

19545, urban renewal, creating a rapid transit system, building an auditorium and a

stadium for Atlanta, and instituting an aggressive marketing plan entitled “Forward

Atlanta” that promoted Atlanta as a national city (Allen 1971).

Allen was elected mayor in 1961. The city of Atlanta continued to operate under

a weak mayor form of government where Allen served as the city’s chief administrative

officer but had limited appointive power. Allen’s two terms as mayor were associated

with a number of positive changes. During his first year in office, all city employees

were placed on a forty-hour work week and received a raise in pay, and the city worked

with the state legislature to commission a group that would study the possibilities of a

rapid transit system (General Budget 1962).

Allen incorporated his business skills into running the city. In Allen’s 1962

Budget Message, he boasted that the general budget was the largest in city history with

no increase in the tax rate. He later writes that “because of Atlanta's narrow tax base and

limited sources of revenue, the city has used the available sources of revenue to the

fullest extent" (General Budget 1962).

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy requested for Allen to testify before a U.S.

Senate committee in support of a national Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act would

require all public businesses that were involved with interstate commerce to serve all

patrons regardless of race. Mayor Allen agreed to testify in support of a national Civil

Rights Act and was the only Southern mayor to do so. Despite objections from many in

the white community regarding his stance on civil rights, Allen was easily reelected in

1965 (Allen 1971). During this same year the state of Georgia appropriated 6,000,000

5 After the Brown v. Board decision in 1954, racists wanted to close the public schools rather than allow black and white children to attend desegregated schools (Bayor 1996). 61

dollars in state aid to municipalities. The funds were to be used towards capital

improvements and the repair/extension of roads and streets. Atlanta received 1,328,201

dollars which it used on 36 various school projects, street and bridge repair and an

aggressive urban renewal project. In 1967, Allen declared an "all out attack" on crime

and traffic violations (General Budget 1967). He pushed for stronger enforcement of

Atlanta's substandard housing code, increased expressway and street maintenance,

demanded better trash collection service, increased park and recreation facilities, oversaw

major airport expansion, launched a concentrated attack on water pollution and improved

salaries for employees (General Budget 1967).

Allen, described as a southern liberal on race, hosted the first city-wide biracial

dinner in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. who had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

in the fall of 1964 (Allen 1971). However Allen’s actions as a southern liberal did little

to assuage the fact that African Americans still played no more than junior roles in

Atlanta’s biracial governing coalition. This fact would soon prove to be the final straw

that broke biracial governing coalition. The biracial governing coalition that gained

renown for Mayor Hartsfield was tenuous at best. It withstood Allen’s 1962 Peyton Road

blunder where the mayor ordered the erection of a physical wall to block African

Americans from coming into a white neighborhood (Stone 1989). It also withstood a

1968 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) referendum after it failed

to serve poor neighborhoods (Stone 1989). However, the biracial governing coalition

could not withstand the upcoming mayoral election to replace term limited Ivan Allen, Jr.

The African-American community would take a bold stand against the white business-

elite in order to select and support their own candidate for mayor. This would end the

biracial governing coalition as it was known in Atlanta and redistribute the balance of

local governing power.

3.3 The Breakdown of Atlanta’s Biracial Coalition: Sam Massell - Mayor of Atlanta

1970 –1974

Three candidates emerged as potential successors to Ivan Allen, Jr. in Atlanta’s

mayoral race. The white business elite endorsed Rodney Cook, a white member of the

Board of Alderman. The African-American leadership refused to endorse Cook and was

initially split between supporting Dr. Horace Tate, esteemed black educator, and Sam

Massell, vice-mayor to Ivan Allen. Massell served as vice-mayor for eight years in the

Allen administration. Massell was Jewish and had broad appeal in both liberal and labor groups (Stone 1989). Massell claimed that he was the more experienced candidate and he had trained for the job as vice-mayor under Allen. Allen vehemently opposed Massell’s candidacy for mayor saying that he was unqualified for the job (Allen 1971).

The two sides of the biracial coalition were unable to come to an agreement regarding who would be Atlanta’s next mayor. Instead the 1969 mayoral race turned into a battle that officially broke the biracial governing coalition. African-American leaders refused to accept their junior partner status and eventually mounted solid support behind

Sam Massell. The white business elite refused to relinquish their position as leaders of the governing system in Atlanta and continued to support Rodney Cook (Pomerantz

1996).

According to Stone (1989), the 1969 mayoral race is significant not only because it was the official break in the biracial governing coalition. It also represents the

63 emergence of a new black leadership. Concurrent with the mayoral race, a little known

31 year-old African-American attorney by the name of Maynard H. Jackson, Jr. entered the race for Atlanta’s next vice-mayor. Jackson, who had just lost his bid for U.S. Senate in the Democratic Primary to Herman Talmadge, would become the face of a new black politics. Jackson would later usher in a fundamental change in the position of African

Americans who played junior roles in governing Atlanta to equal roles for a select few.

Both Massell and Jackson were successful. Their wins should have signaled a new kind of governing regime in Atlanta as neither candidate were supported by the white business elites. However, this was not to be the case. Massell was seen as a progressive mayor. When campaigning for mayor in 1969, Massell promised to appoint blacks to major positions in city hall and to increase the proportion of black city employees to 50 percent by 1975. During Massell’s first year in office, he increased the city’s workforce by creating 195 additional full-time positions. He implemented school conversions, and made improvements to the airport. Massell also named an African

American director of the Department of Personnel and created an Office of Affirmative

Action within the Personnel office. Further Massell appointed black members to all aldermanic committees and as chairs of the Finance and Police committees (Stone 1989).

Massell’s first year as mayor represented his only progressive year with respect to race. Massell’s policies and stance towards race underwent a dramatic change as he prepared for an inevitable run against Maynard Jackson in the 1973 mayoral race.

Massell began to court the business community with the hopes of gaining their support in the upcoming election. He supported a 4.78 millage property tax increase and embarked on an aggressive annexation campaign designed to increase the middle-class white

population of the city (General Budget 1971, Stone 1989). Massell opposed both wage

demands and an attempted strike by sanitation workers. Most notably, Massell

admonished black leaders to “think white” in order to garner support for his annexation

plans (Stone 1989, Pomerantz 1996).

In 1973, Massell would erase any association he had as a liberal or progressive

mayor. Massell and Jackson would eventually compete for the position of mayor of

Atlanta in a runoff. Massell would etch his place in Atlanta history as the author of

“Atlanta’s Too Young to Die” (Massell 1973).

3.4 The Birth of a Legend: Maynard Jackson - Mayor of Atlanta 1974-1982

Maynard Hollbrook Jackson Jr. is the grandson of civil rights activist John

Wesley Dobbs. Dobbs, a formidable black Republican, and A.T. Walden, a black

Democratic lawyer, worked to found the Atlanta Negro Voters League in 1949. The

Atlanta Negro Voters League would be a highly influential force in Atlanta politics and

would force then Atlanta mayor William Hartsfield to acknowledge the power of the

black vote (Pomerantz 1996, Bayor 1996). Jackson would be greatly influenced by both

his father Maynard Sr. and his grandfather John Wesley Dobbs. Jackson’s wife recalled

“[Maynard Sr. and John Wesley Dobbs] were supergods in [Jackson’s] life and [Jackson]

had to please them” (Pomerantz 1996, 369).

Jackson entered Morehouse College in 1952 at the age of fourteen. After his

graduation in 1956, Jackson attended Boston University Law School where he failed to pass a number of his classes and subsequently left law school in 1957 at the age of

nineteen. Jackson tried law school again in 1959 only to attain the same failing results.

In 1961, Jackson left Boston to enter law school at the North Carolina Central University

where he successfully completed his juris doctorate in June of 1964 and was admitted to the Georgia bar in January 1965 (Pomerantz 1996).

In 1968, five years before Jackson became the first African-American mayor of

Atlanta, he set in motion a principle of fearless advocacy for the citizens of Atlanta and the state of Georgia. Jackson competed for the U.S. Senate in the Democratic Primary against staunch segregationist and former Georgia governor, Herman Talmadge. Upon seeing no challengers and a subsequent inevitable win by Talmadge, Jackson summarizes his rationale for entering the race as follows…

“It was almost like a sign. That’s when I decided not to do the intelligent thing… My intellect told me no but my heart told me I could [win]. I never admitted to anyone, including my wife that I could not win. I had serious doubts. But I wouldn’t let myself say we could not win. I did tell myself a number of times that it would be a miracle if I did win.” Quoted from Pomerantz 1996, 365

Jackson’s senate campaign agenda focused on guaranteeing economic stability

for Georgian families and providing the necessary training for them to successfully

compete in the job market. Jackson stressed the need for blacks and whites to unite as a

common force against inequality, degradation, and poverty. In his 1968 poverty speech,

Jackson states…

“I would sponsor and support programs which would guarantee that each of our citizens has enough basic money to afford a decent home…to obtain enough training to allow the poor white man and his black brother to participate successfully in the job market…Talmadge has no more compassion and understanding of the suffering of the poor than he has of the pain and degradation which the system of segregation caused black and white people in this state.” Jackson 1968

On September 19, 1968, Jackson lost his statewide bid for the U.S. Senate in the

Democratic Primary. Jackson received over 207,000 votes compared to Talmadge’s

700,000 votes. Of the 159 counties in Georgia, Jackson won only one, Hancock County which had a majority of black voters (Pomerantz 1996).

While Jackson lost his bid to be the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate,

Jackson won 13 percent of the white vote in Georgia and defeated Herman Talmadge by

6,000 votes in Atlanta. Jackson was no longer an unknown political candidate. Instead, the Senate race against long-time incumbent Herman Talmadge re-positioned Jackson as an emerging political star who would shortly redefine the politics of race in the city of

Atlanta (Pomerantz 1996).

In March 1969, Jackson announced his candidacy for vice-mayor of Atlanta.

Jackson, having just lost his bid for U.S. Senate in the Democratic Primary to Herman

Talmadge, represented the face of a new black politics. Jackson, if successful, could usher in a fundamental change in the position of African Americans who helped govern

Atlanta. To this point, Stone notes that Jackson was (1) not beholden to established black political leaders, (2) had few links to the biracial coalition, and (3) had no history of ties to the white business elite (Stone 1989, 79). In fact, upon announcing his candidacy for vice-mayor, established black leaders were enraged and asked “Who’d he check with”

(Stone 1989, 3).

Jackson competed against Milton Farris, a sixty-two year old white alderman who had served in his position for eighteen years. Farris was a member of the white business elite and worked as an executive with the Gulf Oil Company. In response to Jackson’s bid for vice-mayor, Farris is quoted as saying, “to allow a young boy to handle the

67 intricacies of a city as large as ours would be disastrous.” Jackson responded to Farris’ comment by saying, “Nobody running for the office of vice-mayor has experience in the office of vice mayor, and being an alderman doesn’t necessarily prepare one for the office of vice mayor” (Pomerantz 1996, 387).

In a 1969 speech regarding the role of the vice-mayor, Jackson highlights his commitment to building coalitions, exposing the role of racism in the city and incorporating practical solutions to distribute the city’s resources equally (“The Role of the Vice Mayor” May 8, 1969). Jackson went on to become the first African-American vice-mayor of Atlanta in 1970 with 58 percent of the vote. Approximately 98 percent of

Atlanta’s black voters and 28 percent of Atlanta’s white voters voted for Jackson (Bayor

1996).

In 1970 Atlanta still operated under a weak-mayor governing system. The mayor served as the city’s chief administrative officer but lacked power to veto city council proposals. The mayor, however, had indirect influence in the city’s legislative affairs.

The mayor was responsible for making appointments to all aldermanic committees. He had indirect influence of city departments as department heads reported to the aldermanic board. The position of vice mayor was largely ceremonial. The vice mayor conducted bimonthly aldermanic board meetings and had ex-officio voting powers on aldermanic committees (Stone 1989). Therefore Jackson had little power to change the plight of

Atlanta’s local government or implement the desires of his 1969 speech. He was, however, in a good position to run for mayor of Atlanta in the 1973 election.

On March 28, 1973, Jackson announced his intentions to run for mayor of

Atlanta. Jackson states that,

“…together, we can show the world that here was a city too strong not to fight, too loving not to care, and too great to turn away” Jackson 1972

Jackson ran against the incumbent Mayor Sam Massell. Both Jackson and Massell

recognized that Atlanta had changed and that African-American Atlanta residents would

no longer wait for a black mayor. The 1969 mayoral race between Massell, favored by the black community, and Rodney Cook, favored by the business community, effectively

ended the biracial governing relationship which required the black community to adhere

to the wishes of the white business elite. By 1973, the black population in Atlanta had increased to 54 percent compared to 38 percent in 1960 (Bayor 1996). Jackson’s victory

in 1969 signaled that he was highly favored by the majority of the black community and

enough of the white community to secure a win in the election.

Jackson ran on an anti-crime platform and a commitment to address both racial injustice and racial fears. Jackson’s campaign slogan was “Jackson – Crime Is His Issue”

(Allen 1996). Massell ran an equally positive campaign that focused on his record of

service to Atlanta during his time as mayor. Massell’s campaign slogan was “Win It

Again, Sam!” (Pomerantz 1996). The 1973 mayoral election resulted in a runoff election

as no candidate received the majority of the vote. Jackson received 47 percent. Massell

received 19.8 percent. Other candidates included Georgia Congressmen Charles Weltner

who received 19.1 percent of the vote and Leroy Johnson who received 4 percent of the vote (Pomerantz 1996).

Massell, sensing defeat in the runoff between he and Jackson, embarked on what is now regarded one of the most racialized campaign tactics of his political career.

Massell launched a series of campaign ads entitled “Atlanta’s Too Young To Die.” The

cover story claimed that…

“The thought of a Maynard Jackson-Hosea Williams administration is scaring some Atlantians to death…if such a team attempts to lead this city, many blacks and whites fear a new trend of flight from Atlanta. They fear an end to the progress, an end to opportunity and an end to faith…If that faith dies, Atlanta dies with it…On October 16 you can get up, get out and vote for Sam Massell. And you must. Because this election isn’t a question of race. It’s a question of faith in Atlanta. And Atlanta cannot stay home on election day and watch that faith die.” Massell 1973a

The “Atlanta’s Too Young To Die” series depicted empty urban streets that were

filled with garbage and debris. The campaign series also attempted to link Jackson with

radical civil rights activist Hosea Williams who was running for vice mayor. The cover

story advertisement suggested that Atlanta would mimic an empty shell of a once great city should Maynard Jackson be elected mayor. The campaign series played on white fears of a black takeover in Atlanta and that Jackson, if elected mayor, would punish whites for years of segregation by only adhering to concerns of the African-American

community. Massell claims that black control of city hall would not be good for the city

and that property values would decline upon the election of a black mayor. His tactics

were summarized in an October 2, 1973 article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution which

instructed white voters that, “It’s cheaper to vote than to move” (Jones 1978, 107).

Massell continued to launch an attack against Jackson. In a subsequent ad,

Massell claimed that “Atlanta’s Greatest Black Leader Doesn’t Happen to be Black.” In

a 1973 article, Massell claimed that…

“The black leaders in this race, and you know who they are, talk a smooth game. But let’s face it. They haven’t done diddley squat for you, the black community….this election isn’t a question of race. It’s a question of what you want. To be ripped off with rhetoric. Or to be given the kind of representative government you’ve been fighting for during the last 20 years. GET OUT AND VOTE FOR MAYOR MASSELL.”

Massell 1973b

Massell’s plan to use scare tactics to secure his reelection did not materialize.

Jackson won the runoff election with 59 percent of the votes that were cast. Jackson was sworn in as Atlanta’s first African-American mayor on January 7, 1974. In his inaugural address, Jackson promised to “work to create a people’s administration” and

emphasized that crime was a problem that had to be addressed by all of Atlanta’s citizens.

By 1974, Atlanta was a different place than that of the Hartsfield days. The city had adopted a new city charter that converted the functions of local government from a

weak mayor form of government to a strong mayor form of government. The new city

charter appointed the mayor as the city’s chief executive (Atlanta City Charter 1973). 6

The mayor was to be elected at-large for a term of four years. After serving two consecutive terms, the mayor would be deemed ineligible for a third term. The mayor is generally responsible for providing direction and long-term guidance for the city. Unlike in the weak-mayor form of government, the mayor has clear authority over the city council and the power to execute his/her preferences for the benefit of the city.

The board of aldermen was eliminated in favor of the city council. The city council would serve as the city’s legislative body. The city council was composed of eighteen members. Six council members were elected at-large while the remaining twelve were elected by their district. The new charter provided for a position as president of the city council who is elected at-large. The president of the city council would preside at council meetings but would not be a member of the body (Atlanta City Charter

6 The duties are the mayor are as follows: enforce laws and ordinances, appoint directors of departments with council confirmation, supervise departmental administration, prepare a comprehensive planning policy and program, prepare city budget, may veto council legislation, convene special meetings, make investigations and reports for the council, provide facts and recommendations for the council, may initiate city governmental administrative reorganizations, negotiate and execute contracts, and represents the city (Atlanta City Charter 1973). 71

1973). However, Atlanta suffered a number of social ills. The city struggled amidst a

declining tax base as the exodus of middle class whites continued and the

suburbanization of middle class blacks got underway. The unemployment rate was 7.5

percent and crime which had been getting progressively worse over the years reached a

new high. In 1974 the Federal Bureau of Investigation named Atlanta the worst city per

capita for crime (Allen 1996).

As mayor of Atlanta, Jackson supported major development and implemented affirmative actions policies to ensure that African Americans could access a share of the city’s economic resources. Pomerantz summarizes Jackson’s intentions as follows…

“Though often charged by whites with being anti-business, Maynard Jr. supported virtually every major development initiative during his mayoralty, including projects inherited by his administration…What prompted much of the grumbling by white business elites was having to conduct business with a mayor they perceived as self- absorbed, demanding of their respect and bent on helping blacks at the expense of whites. Yet Jackson formed his social programs not to obstruct development but in a way that conformed to it; he aimed to give blacks a larger piece of the economic pie while, at the same time, increasing the size of the pie.” Pomerantz 1996, 446

Jackson accomplished his intentions to give blacks a larger piece of the economic pie by establishing a goal of 25 percent minority involvement in all municipal contracts through direct minority participation or joint-ventures with white-owned companies. By

1975, the percentages of city contracts that had been awarded to minority-owned firms increased from less than 1 percent to 5 percent. This number increased to 24.9 percent by

1976 and 28 percent by 1981 (Dingle 2005). Jackson created the Bureau of Cultural

Affairs to highlight the arts and formed the Atlanta Economic Development Corporation in order to bring private funds into the city. In his personal life, Jackson refused to enter the Piedmont Driving Club, an elite social club, as long as the club members refused to accept black members (Pomerantz 1996).

Jackson’s attempt to address the ills of impoverished African Americans was

done by restructuring the police force and neighborhood involvement. The new city

charter allowed Jackson to create a Department of Public Safety which would be headed

by a commissioner who would effectively outrank the position of police chief. After a

great deal of controversy, Jackson appointed a friend and political advisor, Reginald

Eaves, to become the first public safety commissioner (Pomerantz 1996, Stone 1996,

Allen 1996).

Jackson also incorporated a powerful place for leaders from neighborhood groups to have input in local governance. The new city charter required citizen participation in the city’s planning process (Stone 1996). Jackson supported a city council ordinance to establish twenty-two neighborhood planning units from the city’s more than two hundred neighborhoods. The city council ordinance required that all planning and zoning be accepted by the neighborhood planning units that were affected before action could be taken by the city government. Jackson supported the city council’s ordinance by creating the Division of Neighborhood Planning and assigning a city government staff person to assist the neighborhood planning units (Stone 1989).

In 1977, Jackson faced largely unknown candidates. Even the white business community, sensing his inevitable victory, hosted a fundraiser for Jackson. Jackson was easily reelected in 1977 with 63 percent of the vote (Pomerantz 1996). Jackson continued to pursue affirmative action policies both within the local government and from companies that contracted with the local government. For example Jackson demanded that local banks include African Americans and women as members of their board of directors and threatened to take city funds elsewhere if local banks did not comply.

When bankers asked where else he would put the money, Jackson responded, “In

Birmingham” (Pomerantz 1996, 474). After this threat, blacks and women began

appearing as bank directors.

From 1974-1982, Maynard H. Jackson Jr. introduced a new type of politics to the

city of Atlanta. Jackson was an undeterred leader who did not adhere to the established

biracial coalition between the white business elites and long standing black leaders. For

this, Jackson enjoyed the support of Atlanta’s black community and much of the liberal

white community. He was applauded by the black middle class who were given access to

city contracts at unprecedented rates compared to the rates before Jackson’s arrival.

However, Jackson’s relationship with the white business elite was tumultuous at best.

Leaders of the white business elite were not accustomed to receiving demands from either elected officials or African Americans. Therefore Jackson’s commitment to affirmative action must have been doubly shocking since he was both an elected official and an African American.

However, a close inspection of Jackson’s tenure as mayor of Atlanta reveals a

distinct preference in the method for redistributing limited local resources. While Stone

(1989) notes that Jackson was “firmly committed to a progressive policy agenda and not

intimidated by opposition…Jackson believed he had a mandate for social reform, and he

was explicit about rejecting a tradition of what he termed slavish, unquestioning adherence to downtown dicta” (Stone 1989, 87), many of Jackson’s affirmative action policies centered on access to minority contracts and the redistribution of local resources through economic channels. Jackson’s policies therefore helped members of the black middle class rather than the black lower class, as the former were in a position to receive

74 these benefits more so than their less fortunate counterparts. Reed (1988) warns that this is often the case since the benefits of a black mayor or a black governing regime tend to be concentrated among middle class blacks rather than the large groups of lower and working class blacks who helped to elect the black mayor or black regime into office.

Reed claims that this is because by the time a black mayor or black regime is elected to office they are already members of a pro-growth partnership with the business community (Reed 1988). Additionally, Reed (1988) claims that middle class blacks who receive these benefits will work to protect them, thereby coveting these resources among a select few rather than distributing them to all members of the black community.

This is a viable alternative in explaining the systems that govern a regime change in cities. In fact, Stone and Pierannunzi (1997) say that black electoral success should be viewed as success in gaining a position in a complex set of relationships rather than an opportunity to exercise independent forms of power. However, if ever there was a time in Atlanta’s history where a fundamental shift in the preferences and actions of local government were evident, it should have occurred between 1974 and 1981 when

Maynard Jackson was elected as the first African-American mayor of Atlanta. It was during this period and this period only when Atlanta experienced an emboldened leader who disregarded the status quo.

3.5 Fast Forward to the City that Works: Andrew Young, Maynard Jackson

(again), Bill Campbell, and Shirley Franklin 1982-2010

Subsequent mayors of Atlanta would incorporate their own style into Atlanta’s rich history. Andrew Young served as mayor of Atlanta from 1982-1990. Young is

75 credited with restoring a working and familial relationship with Atlanta’s business community. He is quoted as saying, “I didn’t get elected with your help but I can’t govern without you” (Atlanta Constitution, 1987). Jackson’s return to office in 1991 was starkly different from his first two terms. Scholars of Atlanta history often distinguish these two periods of Jackson’s reign as Jackson one and Jackson two. Jackson’s return to office in 1991 was much less tumultuous than his first two terms, as he was greeted by the business community and adhered to a system of economic growth rather than political empowerment for members of the black community.

Jackson was followed by Bill Campbell who served from 1994-2002. Campbell, former city council president, would help the city host the 1996 Olympic Games and two superbowls. Campbell would later disgrace the city by leaving her with an 82 million dollar budget gap, a sewer system in need of major repair, and a tax evasion conviction in

May of 2006. Shirley Franklin was elected as Atlanta’s first female mayor in 2002 and served until 2010. She entered the position of mayor when the city was near the brink of financial collapse and constantly struggled with the city council to forward her agenda

(Pomerantz 1996).

In 2001, Franklin ran for mayor against 24-year veteran of city politics and city council president, Rob Pitts, and former city council member Gloria Bromell-Tinubu.

Franklin won the position of Atlanta’s mayor with 50.29 percent of the vote and narrowly avoided a runoff by just 191 votes. In order to tackle the 82 million dollar budget gap that was left by her predecessors, Franklin enlisted the help of Bain and Company, a global consulting and accounting firm to analyze the origins of the budget shortfall. In their

2002 Budget Analysis and Benchmarking Final Report, the Bain and Company Pro Bono

Project concluded that the 82 million dollar budget gap in the city’s 2002 proposed

budget was due to a decline in actual revenues, a 65 million dollar growth in expenditures from 1999-2001, the city overspending its initial budget for the prior three years, city expenditures growing faster than city revenues since 1989, overspending for the same

types of services compared to comparable cities, and a larger workforce per 100,000

residents than comparable cities. The Bain and Company Pro Bono Project concluded

that the city of Atlanta should adopt a number of steps to make the city’s financial

officials more accountable and efficient in order to stave off fiscal disaster, including

tightly monitoring the city’s budget, establishing close links between projected and actual

expenditures, and holding department heads accountable for both financial and operating

goals (Bain and Company 2002).

In 2003, Franklin reported on the city’s progress during the State of the City

Business Address. She noted that the city was able to close the budget gap, operate

within the set budget and reestablish the city’s reserve fund. Yet even in this success,

Franklin notes the most pervasive element that defines Atlanta is not the city’s ability to

recover from fiscal disaster or its leaders. Instead, Atlanta is defined by its inability to

define its own destiny apart from adversarial surrounding counties and an often hostile

state government.

3.6 When it Almost Fell Apart: The 2009 Atlanta Mayoral Election

By 2009, the black community had held control over the mayor’s office and a

substantial portion of the city council for over three decades. During this same time, the

demographics of the city changed in ways that made continued electoral control more

difficult. By 2008, Atlanta’s population had grown to include 445,709 people, with

African Americans comprising 55.8 percent of the total population. While African

Americans still comprised a majority of Atlanta’s population, their population decreased

from highs of 67 percent in 1980 and 1990, and 61 percent in 2000. This change in the

demographics of the population set the stage for a difficult fight to retain black electoral control of local government.

By November 2009, six candidates were competing to replace term-limited

Shirley Franklin and become the 59th mayor of Atlanta.7 Of these six, Lisa Borders,

Mary Norwood, and Kasim Reed rose as frontrunners in the mayoral race. Lisa Borders

served as president of the Atlanta city council since 2004 and headed the Grady Health

System Foundation (Borders 2009a). Borders configured her campaign for mayor around restructured municipal spending plans, public safety, economic development, and strategic efforts to address homelessness and economic distress among seniors (Borders

2009b-e).

Mary Norwood served on the city council since 2002 but in her eight years as a representative never chaired a committee and had considerable difficulty in passing legislation. Norwood’s strategy as Atlanta’s next mayor focused on increasing public safety, improving the accounting practices of the city, and improving the delivery of services. Specifically, Norwood planned to improve public safety by hiring more police officers and heavily prosecuting repeat offenders. Additionally, Norwood planned to hire a chief operation officer to manage municipal funds, develop a transparent system of accounting for city finances, and raise city revenues by building a stronger tax base.

7 The six candidates for Atlanta’s 59th mayor included Lisa Borders, Peter Brownlowe, Kyle Keyser, Mary Norwood, Kasim Reed and Jesse Spikes. 78

Norwood intended to create a Code Enforcement Board to monitor code compliance and

prevent neighborhood blight and improve the delivery of city services by increasing their efficiency (Suggs 2009).

Kasim Reed served as a Georgia state representative from 1999-2003 and a

Georgia state senator from 2003-2009. Reed structured his campaign for mayor around a commitment to restore public safety in Atlanta. Specifically Reed planned to reduce crime in the city of Atlanta by investing in after-school and weekend programs that would deter youth from becoming involved in criminal activities and gangs. Reed

submitted his strategy for the city in his policy platform entitled Securing Atlanta: A

Blueprint for Restoring Public Safety in Atlanta. His strategy included adding 750 new

police officers, supporting dedicated funding for public safety officers, re-entry programs

to provide job training and educational opportunities to inmates and local policies that

punish absentee landlords among other things (Reed 2009). These three candidates would

provide a test case to determine the current significance of race in Atlanta politics.

On November 3, 2009 Atlanta voters descended to the polls to vote in one of the

most historic local elections since the election of Maynard Jackson in 1973.

Approximately 78,642 or 30 percent of all registered voters cast ballots. Of this total,

black and white citizens turned out a relatively high-percentage of their respective racial

group’s registered voters. Approximately 31 percent (22,245 out of 72,639) and 24

percent (13,299 out of 54,916) of all registered black men and women voters respectively

cast their vote. Conversely, an estimated 37 percent (17,493 out of 46,681) and 39

percent (18,696 out of 47,739) of all registered white men and women voters respectively

cast their vote (Georgia Secretary of State 2009).

Vote choices were cast on racial lines, with the majority of the black vote being

split between Borders and Reed and the majority of the white vote being cast for

Norwood. Norwood won the greatest number of votes with 33,279 votes or 45.96 percent

of all votes cast (City of Atlanta 2009a). Kasim Reed came in second with 26,446 or

36.52 percent of all votes cast (City of Atlanta 2009a). Lisa Borders came in third with

10,272 votes or 14.19 percent of the vote (City of Atlanta 2009a).8 Since no candidate

won the majority, candidates prepared for a runoff election between the top two

candidates, Mary Norwood and Kasim Reed. Many political analysts predicted that

voters who selected Lisa Borders in the general election would overwhelmingly transition

their support to Kasim Reed due to many factors including the desire to maintain black

control of local government. As the runoff drew near, the two candidates fought to reject

the undercurrent of race and racial relations in the city of Atlanta.

The runoff election was held on December 1, 2009 and solidified Kasim Reed as

the 59th mayor of Atlanta. Reed won 39,290 votes or 50.55 percent of all votes cast.

Mary Norwood won 38,442 or 49.45 percent of all votes cast. A recount of votes would

confirm that Kasim Reed was elected as the 59th mayor of Atlanta by only 847 votes

(City of Atlanta 2009b).

Kasim Reed was inaugurated as the 59th mayor of Atlanta on January 4, 2010. In

his inaugural speech, Reed discussed his vision of Atlanta’s economic vitality through

job creation and creating opportunities for all citizens of the city. Reed reiterated his

commitment to increasing public safety by hiring additional police officers and providing

8 The remaining 3.3 percent of total votes cast were divided between Jesse Spikes with 1777 or 2.45 percent of total votes, Kyle Keyser with 480 votes or 0.66 percent of total votes cast, Peter Brownlowe with 97 votes or 0.13 percent of total votes cast, and 60 write-in votes representing 0.08 percent of total votes cast (City of Atlanta 2009a).

incentives to keep them within the city limits. Finally, Reed discussed the need to create

deterrents for youth who would otherwise be drawn to crime (City of Atlanta 2010). It is

too early in his tenure to evaluate Reed’s progress in these efforts but the election of

Atlanta’s 59th mayor provides a wealth of evidence on the sustained importance of race

and race relations in one southern city.

3.7 Conclusion

Atlanta’s political history details a struggle of race and power. Early in Atlanta’s history,

African Americans were systemically excluded from participating in the political process

that governed their lives but chose to use what resources they did have to force change.

The following chapter explores whether this shift from limited political influence to high levels of political influence translated into substantive goods and services that addressed the needs of the African-American community.

Mayor Years Black Mayor Largest Percent of Black Council William Hartsfield 1937-1941 0 0 Roy LeCraw/ 1941-19943 0 0 George Lyle William Hartsfield 1943-1962 0 0 Ivan Allen 1962-1966 0 0 Ivan Allen 1966-1970 0 6 of 19 Samuel Massell 1970-1974 0 9 of 19 Maynard Jackson 1974-1978 1 11 of 19 Maynard Jackson 1978-1982 1 11 of 19 Andrew Young 1982-1986 1 12 of 19 Andrew Young 1986-1990 1 12 of 19 Maynard Jackson 1990-1994 1 14 of 19 Bill Campbell 1994-1998 1 --- Bill Campbell 1998-2002 1 9 of 16 Shirley Franklin 2002-2006 1 10 of 16 Shirley Franklin 2006-2010 1 10 of 16 Kasim Reed 2010 – Present 1 12 of 16 *The City of Atlanta provided information on city council composition from 1937-2010. The author supplemented missing information with information from The National Roster of African American Officials.

Table 3.1: Atlanta Mayors and City Council Representatives 1937 – 2010

Year Total Population Black Population Percent Black 1950 331,314 121,416 36.6 1960 487,455 186,820 38.3 1970 496,973 255,051 51.3 1980 425,022 283,158 66.6 1990 394,071 263,235 66.8 2000 416,474 254,062 61.0 2008 445, 709 248,698 55.8 *Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3.2: Population Changes in Atlanta, GA 1950-2008

*Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 3.1: Population Changes in Atlanta, GA 1950-2008

Chapter 4:

Becoming Politically Incorporated – Changing the Governing Regime

This chapter continues to examine political incorporation as structural change in the way that cities operate. By focusing on Atlanta, Georgia, this chapter will analyze the manner by which representatives determine whose needs to address as well as whose needs to ignore. Mack Jones (1978) claims that in order to understand black political power, one must first understand the racial dynamics that drive it. Jones (1978) says,

“…it is theoretically useful to conceptualize black politics as a power struggle between whites bent on maintaining their position of dominance and blacks struggling to escape this dominance” (Jones 1978, 92).

Given these constraints, Jones (1978) advocates that an assessment of political power by

black elected officials include tangible displays of their success at providing resources,

altering governing priorities, and preventing the passage of policy that would adversely

impact the African-American community.

Stone (1989) describes a political situation in Atlanta where African Americans, a

traditionally excluded group, made inroads into the political decision making process.

Stone describes the plight of African-American political action as one that follows three

distinct steps. During early parts of the Hartsfield administration, African Americans

were completely excluded from the political process. African-American Atlanta

residents, like most other African Americans at the time, were denied the right to vote.

This disenfranchisement robbed them of an opportunity to influence political decisions

through direct involvement in the political process. Next, Stone describes early moves by

the Hartsfield administration to include key African-American religious leaders in a

junior partnership role. The junior partnership offered African Americans limited

participation in the political process but silenced their agenda if it differed from that of

the white community. Finally, Stone describes the emergence of political incorporation

in Atlanta. Early forms of political incorporation highlighted the role of African

Americans acting as swing voters for Sam Massell, thereby guaranteeing him the mayoral position against the will of the business community. Later forms of political incorporation were evidenced by African Americans electing their own members to city council positions. The final form of political incorporation was seen in the election of

Maynard Jackson, Atlanta’s first African-American mayor. Jackson constructed a powerful grassroots movement and defied the status quo. Jackson was elected mayor in

1973 and served a total of three terms before he retired from public service and passed away in 2003.

There are, therefore, at least two scenarios that describe Atlanta. Browning,

Marshall and Tabb’s (1984) construction of political incorporation suggests that political incorporation happens when groups that were originally excluded from the political decision making process become included into the process. Stone helps us to describe this process more fully by making the necessary distinction between elected officials and governing regimes. Elected officials are selected via the local ballot and have limited control over the governing process. Members of the governing regime are not popularly elected but oftentimes possess substantial influence in determining the plight of the city.

The hopes of political incorporation is that through repeated and sustained instances of inclusion by formerly excluded groups, these groups can gain influence by having both descriptively representative elected officials and permanent members of the governing regime. The following text tests whether this process was successful in Atlanta by

assessing both the potential impact of Maynard Jackson and the larger significance of a racial regime change in the Atlanta mayor’s office.

4.1 Evaluating Substantive Representation through a Change in Governing Regime

The previous chapter detailed the plight of African-American political mobilization in Atlanta. African-American political mobilization was a compilation of strategic decisions in the absence of the ability to vote followed by strategic decisions involving whom to support for political office once this participatory right was attained.

Atlanta’s political history reveals one distinct period where the city had the opportunity to shift from a white dominated and pro-business governing regime towards a multiracial

and progressive governing regime.

Maynard Jackson’s first two terms as Atlanta’s mayor provide the best opportunity to shift the Atlanta governing regime from a white dominated and pro-

business governing regime towards a multiracial and progressive governing regime. As

noted in chapter 3, Maynard Jackson was not a member of the established African-

American leadership in Atlanta. While he was the grandson of an esteemed African-

American civil rights leader, Jackson himself had not been included in the rank of

African-American junior partners in Atlanta’s governing regime. Comments like “Who’d

he check with,” when he announced his intention to run for Atlanta’s vice mayor supports

this point. Secondly, unlike his predecessors as vice mayor or mayor, Jackson promoted

an assertive affirmative action agenda in order to ensure that minority businesses had an

opportunity to compete for municipal contracts. With these efforts Jackson defied the

status quo that excluded minorities from the economic benefits of the city.

Jackson’s first term as mayor, beginning in 1974, was also a time when the city underwent major structural changes. Jackson was elected not only as Atlanta’s first

African-American mayor, but he was also the first mayor of the city with veto power.

This power redefined the dynamics between the mayor and the city council and affirmed

Jackson as the city’s chief executive.

Finally, Jackson presided over a city with a large and growing African-American population that supported him and demanded change in the responsiveness of government to their needs. Jackson defeated Sam Massell by winning 59 percent of the vote in a city that had increased 16 percent in its black population from 1960 to 1973.

Additionally, African Americans continued to gain more representation on the city council. During Jackson’s first term African Americans comprised 57 percent of the city council, up from 32 percent when Jackson served as vice mayor and 6 percent prior to his entry into Atlanta politics.

From 1974-1982, Jackson had many of the ingredients necessary to operationalize the concept of political incorporation. He had the will to institute a new way of governing the city, structural changes that provided him a greater share of power and the support of a highly engaged and politically savvy African-American community. The following examinations will test whether Jackson was able to institute a change in the governing regime of Atlanta. Further the following text tests whether subsequent mayors adhered to and maintained this change.

4.2 Methods

4.2.1 The Pulse Model

Clarence Stone (1989) argues that Maynard Jackson’s actions moved Atlanta away from a strictly business focused agenda towards a process that addressed both the neglected

African-American community along with neighborhood group concerns. In essence

Maynard Jackson presumably acts as a shock to Atlanta’s governing system that results in a shift in the operating process of the city. The pulse model tests this assertion by determining whether the introduction of Maynard Jackson as Atlanta’s first African-

American mayor changed the data generating process for how resources are allocated.

This model treats Maynard Jackson’s first two terms, from 1974-1982, as a postulated event that qualitatively changed the state of the social process (Box-Steffensmeier,

Freeman, and Pevehouse 2009).

I hypothesize that Jackson will act to temporarily shift the funding patterns for

Atlanta. However, this shift does not apply to all areas of municipal funding. African-

American mayors are presumably most different from white mayors in areas of redistributive policy including public housing, public health, and public welfare.

African-American mayors are no different from white mayors in areas of general civil service including fire, highways, parks, and police protection (Keller 1978). We should therefore see more positive allocations in municipal funding decisions for redistributive areas in Jackson’s first two terms compared to his white predecessors. Conversely, we should see similar allocation patterns in general civil service areas during this time frame.

My hypotheses are as follows...

H1: Maynard Jackson’s first two terms as Atlanta’s mayor are associated with increases in municipal funding for housing, public health, and welfare.

H2: Maynard Jackson’s first two terms as Atlanta’s mayor are associated with no change in municipal funding for fire, highways, parks, and police services.

The pulse model helps to determine the unique role of Maynard Jackson, Atlanta’s first

African-American mayor. The following series of tests will determine if Jackson had a

temporary impact on the funding structure for the city.

4.2.2 The Regime Change Model

Browning, Marshall and Tabb’s (1984) argument for political incorporation could

also be viewed as an argument that the structure of the political system changed upon the

introduction of African-American mayors. Clarence Stone (1989) refers to this as a

regime change. Fundamentally, both concepts are arguing that some exogenous force

alters the governing system so that the system takes on a new form. Browning, Marshall

and Tabb (1984) and Stone (1989) detail the role of African-American elected officials in

this process. The regime change analysis tests whether the data generating process is

altered upon the introduction and sustained presence of African-American mayors in

Atlanta.

The notion of a regime change is also referred to as a structural break. Box-

Steffensmeier, Freeman and Pevehouse (2009) note that structural breaks in political

science often describe periods of realignment or significant economic breaks like the

Great Depression. Browning, Marshall and Tabb (1984) and Stone (1989) recognize the significance of a potential structural break at the local level as members of the governing

90 regime or body that making decisions for the city changes to include minority members who presumably have a different set of preferences to uphold. Therefore the regime change method formally tests whether the sustained presence of African-American mayors in Atlanta has created two separate and distinct data generating processes. One process describes the data generating process among Atlanta’s white mayors. The other process describes the data generating process among Atlanta’s black mayors.

I hypothesize that a regime change occurred upon the entry of African-American mayors. However, like in the pulse model, regime change does not apply to all areas of municipal funding decisions. African-American mayors should be associated with increased funding for redistributive funding areas compared to their white counterparts.

African-American governing regimes should display the same allocation patterns in general civil service areas compared to white governing regimes. My hypotheses for the regime change model are as follows...

H3: African-American governing regimes are associated with increases in municipal funding for housing, public health, and welfare.

H4: African-American governing regimes are associated with no change in municipal funding for fire, highways, parks, and police services.

The following model helps to differentiate between a temporary impact of Maynard

Jackson’s election as Atlanta’s first African-American mayor and a fundamental shift in how money is allocated due to a regime change based on the sustained presence of

African-American mayors. The structural equation model is as follows…

Equation 1: Y= β0 + βpχ1 + β Iχ2 + ε

The variable Bp reports the role of a dummy variable for Maynard Jackson’s first two terms as Atlanta’s mayor. This variable is included to test the presence of a pulse in the data generating process due to Jackson’s tenure. The variable BI reports the effect of a

dummy variable for the presence of all African-American mayors in Atlanta, thereby

testing whether a change in the governing regime occurred (Enders and Sandler 2004).9

In order to determine the role of Maynard Jackson and African American mayors

on changing the governing regime in Atlanta, I determined the data generating process

for each series using visual inspections of correlograms (ACFs and PACFs) and the

Phillips-Perron unit-root test. I then found the first difference for each series in order to ensure the series were stationary and that the mean, variance and covariance were consistent. I then estimated a time series regression using the set of stationary series.

4.3 Data

The data for this project is from the U.S. Census Government Finance Series and the National Roster of Black Elected Officials. The U.S. Census Government Finance

Series provides information on municipal funding decisions for each area of interest.

This series allows the author to construct per capita spending measures for most years of study. All financial data is converted to 2004 constant dollars using the U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator. The National Roster of Black Elected Officials

9 Enders and Sandler (2004) offer a way to conceptualize differences among unit roots, the effect of a pulse and a regime change. They ask if the events of September 11, 2001 temporarily impacted the process of terrorist events or if these same events fundamentally changed how terrorism was executed. Enders and Sandler construct a model to determine which of these scenarios provides an accurate description of terrorism post September 11, 2001. Their model has been modified to suit the purpose of this project.

92 provides information on the year that each African American was elected to the mayor’s office.

There are between 50 and 54 observations for each spending measure. Spending measures of interest include per capita spending on a total of seven redistributive and general service dependent variables. Redistributive dependent variables include housing, public health, and welfare. Housing describes the amount per capita dedicated to the construction, operation and support of housing and redevelopment projects. Public health describes the amount of money per capita allocated towards the provision of services that conserve and improve the public’s health not including funding for hospitals and other government programs. Additionally, public health includes financial assistance directed towards hospitals that provide in-patient medical care as well as institutions that service the medical needs of the handicap. Finally, welfare describes the amount of money per capita allocated for the provision, construction and maintenance of nursing homes and other institutions that serve veterans and the needy.

The data set includes four measures of general municipal service areas. These include fire, highway, parks and police. Fire describes amount of money per capita used to prevent and suppress fire. This variable also includes auxiliary services such as ambulance, medical and rescue services provided by fire protection agencies. Highway describes amount of money per capita expended towards the construction, maintenance, operation, and repair of highways, streets, roads, alleys, sidewalks, bridges, tunnels, ferry boats, viaducts, and related non-toll structures. Parks describes the amount of money per capita used to provide and support the public maintenance of recreational and culturally- specific facilities. Police describes the amount of money per capita used to enforce the

law, reduce crime, and protect both individuals and property from illegal acts. The police

variable also includes expenditures for general police, sheriffs, state police, and other

government departments that take part in these duties.

In order to assess the impact of Maynard Jackson, I included a dummy variable

for Maynard Jackson’s first two terms. The variable is noted as βp in structural equation

1. It equals one from 1974-1982 and is equal to zero in all other years. Therefore this

variable equals one with a frequency of eight and equals zero with a frequency of forty-

six.10

In order to assess the impact of a regime change due to the sustained presence of

African-American mayors, I included an independent variable for regime change. Unlike

the impact of Maynard Jackson’s first two terms, the regime change variable models the

span of African-American mayors in Atlanta from 1974-2004. The regime change

variable is constructed as a dummy variable. The regime change variable is noted as βI in

structural equation 1 and equals zero for all time periods before Maynard Jackson’s 1974

election as Atlanta’s first African-American mayor and one thereafter. The regime

change variable is therefore zero with a frequency of twenty-three and one with a

frequency of thirty-one.

10 It is important to note that Maynard Jackson returned to office in 1990 and served one final term. However, the Maynard Jackson of 1990 was distinctly different from that of 1974. The Maynard Jackson of 1974 was elected from a grassroots mobilization effort. This was not true in his 1990 bid for office. The Maynard Jackson of 1990 was less adversarial towards business interests and more accommodating towards their preferences. Arguably, Maynard Jackson’s initial entry as Atlanta’s mayor operated on a different process than his later re-entry eight years later. Therefore Maynard Jackson’s first two terms are conceptualized as a pulse of temporary impact to the data generating process. This is separate from a shift in regime structure by race.

4.4 Results and Discussion

The Box-Jenkins approach is used to determine the data generating process of

each spending measure. All of the expenditure series except the public health series are

generated from an auto-regressive process with one lag. This means that shocks to the

data decay slowly and thus remain part of the data generating process for longer spans of

time. The public health series is generated by a moving average process with one lag.

This means that random shocks to the data persist for a finite period of time before vanishing entirely.

Table 2 gives insight into the question of Jackson’s impact directly and the role of

an African-American governing regime for each funding series. Table 2 shows that

Maynard Jackson’s first two terms were associated with greater per capita spending in the

areas of housing and welfare The presence of Jackson in his first two terms was

associated with significant coefficients in housing (beta value of 16.04 and standard error

of 3.82) and welfare (beta value of 1.66 and standard error of 0.93). This thereby rejects the null hypothesis that Maynard Jackson’s first two terms were not associated with a change in the municipal funding decision making process for housing and welfare but fails to reject the null hypothesis for public health. This suggests that the presence of

Jackson in his first two terms was able to provide substantive representation in the form of allocational responsiveness for housing and welfare to address the preferences of the

African-American community. Table 2 shows some support for the hypothesis two. As expected, Maynard Jackson’s first two terms as Atlanta’s mayor is associated with no change in the municipal funding for fire (beta value of -3.42 and standard error of 7.29), highways (beta value of -2.04 and standard error of 11.46), parks (beta value of -10.34

and standard error of 18.52), or police services (beta value of -5.33 and standard error of

6.51). This suggests that Maynard Jackson’s first two terms as Atlanta’s mayor did not

change how money was allocated towards spending on general municipal services.

Similarly, the change from predominantly white governing regimes to

predominantly black governing regimes had no effect on the data generating process for redistributive areas. The presence of predominantly black governing regimes was associated with insignificant coefficients in housing (beta value of -.3.85 and standard error of 5.51), public health (beta value of 0.42 and standard error of 7.90), and welfare

(beta value of -0.58 and standard error of 6.08). This fails to reject the null hypothesis that African-American mayors are not associated with increases in municipal funding for housing, public health, and welfare. The results show that African-American governing regimes can not be distinguished from predominantly white governing regimes.

Therefore, African-American governing regimes behave in very similar ways to predominantly white governing regimes when considering redistributive funding decisions. The results again show some support for the hypothesis that African-

American governing regimes are not associated with a structural break in the data generating process for general service funding areas. As expected, the presence of predominantly black governing regimes was associated with insignificant coefficients in money allocated toward fire prevention (beta value of 0.42 and standard error of 4.59), highways (beta value of -2.80 and standard error of 6.03), parks (beta value of -6.49 and standard error of 12.02), and police (beta value of 0.85 and standard error of 7.06). The non-significance of the African-American governing regime shows that African-

American regimes are not associated with changes in municipal funding for fire,

96 highways, parks, or police services. As predicted, the African-American regimes act similarly to predominantly white governing regimes on issues of general municipal services.

4.5 Conclusion

The central task of this chapter has been to examine municipal funding patterns over time in order to determine what, if any, impact African-American mayors had on the allocation of municipal funds in Atlanta, Georgia. The literature on political incorporation suggests that the introduction of African-American mayors should be associated with a different type of politics and therefore a different type of allocation structure than that of previous white mayors. Using both a Box-Jenkins data generating process and time series regression, I find evidence to support some of these claims. I find that the presence of Maynard Jackson from 1974-1982 helped to explain increases in per capita funding for housing and welfare. However, having African-American mayors alone does not explain patterns of municipal funding decisions. I also find that neither

Jackson from 1974-1982 nor African-American mayors from 1974-2004 changed municipal spending on general municipal services.

Browning, Marshall and Tabb (1984), the authors of political incorporation, also authored a small follow-up article entitled “Is Anything Enough.” In this article they lament the lack of substantive change emanating from African-American governing regimes. I offer a slightly different question. I ask “Why should race be enough?” The foundation of political incorporation is based on the concept of linked fate and the thought that a common racial identity is also associated with a common desire for

97 change. Reed (1999) and Swain (1993) caution us otherwise. This chapter falls into that same line of thinking by displaying that race alone is not enough. Instead individual efforts, like that of Maynard Jackson in Atlanta, mask a far more complex story of competition and power by many more members of the governing regime.

N Mean Max Min Redistributive Policy Areas Housing 50 27.66 102.55 0 Public Health 54 2.07 26.11 0 Welfare 54 4.76 22.15 0 General Service Areas Fire 54 101.67 194.70 36.95 Highways 54 102.35 188.43 50.37 Parks 54 110.02 200.08 18.42 Police 54 173.68 334.82 45.79 *U.S. Census Government Finance Series provides information on municipal funding decisions which allows the author to construct per capita spending measures. Financial data is from 1951-2004. All financial data has been converted to 2004 constant dollars.

Table 4.1: Description of Dependent Variables

Figure 4.1: Redistributive Funding Areas

100

Figure 4.2: General Service Spending Areas

101

Series B0 Bp B I AR (1) MA(1)

Redistributive

Housing -0.01 16.04 -3.85 -0.26 ---- (4.93) (3.82) (5.51) (0.11)

Public Health -0.47 0.07 0.42 ---- -2.62 (0.56) (10.35) (7.90) (0.78)

Welfare 0.08 1.66 -0.58 -0.35 ---- (6.07) (0.93) (6.08) (0.10)

General Service

Fire 2.18 -3.42 0.42 -0.20 ---- (4.23) (7.29) (4.59) (0.11)

Highways 2.02 -2.04 -2.80 -0.29 ---- (4.38) (11.46) (6.03) (0.14)

Parks 6.86 -10.34 -6.19 -0.05 ---- (6.42) (18.52) (12.02) (0.23)

Police 5.18 -5.33 0.85 -0.04 ---- (6.47) (6.51) (7.06) (0.17)

*U.S. Census Government Finance Series provides information on municipal funding decisions which allows the author to construct per capita spending measures. Financial data is from 1951-2002. All financial data has been converted to 2004 constant dollars. *Estimates of Bo report the intercept. Estimates of Bp report the role of a dummy variable for Maynard Jackson’s first two terms as Atlanta’s mayor and tests whether the presence of Maynard Jackson is associated with a change in the data generating process for the data series. Estimates of BI report the effect of a dummy variable for the presence of all African-American mayors in Atlanta and tests whether a change in the governing regime occurred. Standard errors are in parentheses. *Each spending series has been made stationary by first differencing. *Bolded coefficients denote significance at P ≤ 0.10

Table 4.2: Municipal Funding Decisions using the Presence of Black Mayors as Structural Breaks

102

Chapter 5

Exploring New Boundaries – HIV/AIDS as A Local Crisis

Minority representation can be conceptualized in at least three forms, through

descriptive representation, symbolic representation, and substantive representation.

Minority representation scholars largely argue that descriptive representation increases the likelihood of both substantive and symbolic representation for previously disenfranchised groups (Whitby 1998, Sinclair-Chapman 2002). In Chapter 2, I show that descriptive representation at the local level does not directly lead to substantive representation through allocational responsiveness on certain social policy issues that are most needed by many African Americans. Cities with African-American mayors and city council representatives generally allocate a greater proportion of the city’s resources towards public health and welfare services. However, these cities are also more likely to be in a dire economic crisis. In Chapter 2, I find that economic constraints including the level of poverty in the city, median income, and past spending play a more consistent role in helping to explain current spending patterns in cities. In Chapter 3, I introduce the reader to Atlanta, GA and detail its rich political history that is filled with both victories that provided guidance to the rest of the nation and hard defeats that displayed the constant grip of race and racism in both the South and across the nation. In Chapter 4, I examine whether minority representation transformed the Atlanta governing regime, thereby transforming it into a place that supported policies that were conducive to the needs of Atlanta’s impoverished African Americans. I find that Maynard Jackson’s first two terms as Atlanta’s first African-American mayor was associated with increased

103

funding for housing and welfare. However, having African-American mayors alone was

not associated with changes in the municipal funding structure.

In this chapter, I explore components of symbolic representation as a way that

minority representatives represent their constituents. Thus far, evidence about the ability

of African American local representatives to provide substantive representation in the

form of goods and services has been mixed. Nelson and Meranto (1977) find that

African-American mayors are expected to do much with shrinking resources, a

disproportionate share of high-cost citizens, and racial resentment from the white

community. Conversely, Reed (1999) claims that African American mayors are likely to

be members of a black urban regime who stand in a unique position to garner the support

of the black electorate while forwarding destructive retrenchment policies that benefit a

predominantly white business community. However, there is an alternative option that

removes the economic barriers faced by many African American mayors and city council

members. Rather than engaging in substantive representation through the delivery of

goods and services, local African American representatives can make use of the bully pulpit in order to engage in public conversations that shape the local governing agenda

and provide symbolic representation for city residents. Recall that Sinclair-Chapman

(2002) claims that symbolic representation focuses on “acts aimed at giving voice to

group interests to enhance political deliberation that addresses the concerns of

disadvantaged groups” (Sinclair-Chapman 2002, 8). Additionally, both Whitby (1998)

and Sinclair-Chapman (2002) agree that symbolic legislation provides psychological

benefits and assurance that the representative is working to voice the concerns of her

104

constituency. These acts of symbolic representation are especially important in

addressing issues that disproportionately impact the African-American community.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency

syndrome (AIDS) have reached epidemic proportions in the African-American

community.11 In 2009, unresolved issues of leadership, complacency by the American

public, and a growing number of AIDS related deaths encouraged President Obama to

begin crafting a new national AIDS policy. More recently, “the unholy trinity of silence,

shame, and stigma,” prompted the pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, the home church of

Martin Luther King Jr., to get tested for HIV during Sunday morning worship. With a

growing number of new HIV infections each year and new AIDS cases, what are cities

and particularly minority representatives doing to ensure that HIV/AIDS is a permanent

part of the public agenda.

In the following text, I argue that there are many ways that locally elected

officials can influence the public agenda and show leadership in local political battles.

Locally elected officials can reveal their preferences on national, state, and local policy through public talk. This chapter explores symbolic representation in detail by focusing on the presence and quality of public talk by minority representatives. This chapter specifically focusing on public talk regarding HIV/AIDS in the African-American community and asks if minority representatives work to protect and preserve the health of

African-American constituents who are impacted by HIV/AIDS or if they reinforce pre- established boundaries of blackness that warrant silence on this issue.

11 The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a virus that causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). When appropriate, portions of the remaining text will collectively refer to these disorders as HIV/AIDS. 105

5.1 Theoretical Argument for Evaluating Symbolic Representation through Public

Talk

Sinclair-Chapman (2002) claims that there is political power in symbolic

representation. Sinclair-Chapman (2002) claims that symbolic representation focuses on

“acts aimed at giving voice to group interests to enhance political deliberation that

addresses the concerns of disadvantaged groups” (Sinclair-Chapman 2002, 8).

Definitions by both Pitken (1967) and Whitby (1998) support Sinclair-Chapman’s conclusion. Pitken (1967) describes symbolic representation as standing for the interests of the represented and using symbols as evidence of political effectiveness. Whitby

(1998) describes symbolic representation as “the extent to which a representative is

accepted as believable or classified as one of their own by her constituency” (Whitby

1998, 4). In each instance, a representative is evaluated based on his/her ability to

address the interests of the constituency. One low-cost method for doing so is through

symbolic policies which, according to Whitby (1998), neither distribute public goods nor

regulate behavior. Instead symbolic policies are designed to reflect the interests and

concerns of a representative’s constituency (Whitby 1998, 98). However both Whitby

(1998) and Sinclair-Chapman (2002) agree that symbolic representation provides

psychological benefits and assurance that the representative is working to voice the

concerns of her constituency.

Many authors have attested to the value of public conversation as a manifestation

of symbolic representation that helps people form opinions on public problems and

relevant political issues. Edelman (1964) and Gilliam (1996) claim that symbolic

representation includes symbolic cues, speeches by governmental leaders, and actions

106

taken by governmental bodies. Habermas (1987) argues that democracies need to engage

in critical discussions about public problems in order to help them form opinions and remain active members of their government. Mansbridge (1999) and Harris-Lacewell

(2004) assert the value of public conversations as a tool that helps citizens define their

collective political interests. Mansbridge (1999) claims that conversations in protected

spaces allow citizens to understand their interests and determine whether their interests

contribute to a common goal. Harris-Lacewell (2004) claims that African Americans use

public conversations with other African Americans to develop an understanding of their

collective political interests and that these conversations “constrain the content and style

of ideological appeals made by political elites” (Harris-Lacewell 2004, xxiii). Further

Harris-Lacewell claims that conversations among African Americans take place within a

number of venues including: 1) African-American organizations like the black church, 2)

African-American public spaces like black owned and operated beauty salons and

barbershops, and 3) African-American information networks such as black news media.

Harris-Lacewell claims that these venues function as sites where black political leaders

lobby for the support of potential black voters and potential black voters decide to grant

or withdraw their support.

Given Harris-Lacewell’s (2004) construction, public talk can be used both as a

metric to evaluate the political opinions of the African-American constituency and as a

mechanism to determine if elected representatives adhere to the concerns of those that

they were elected to represent. Public talk can therefore be used as an evaluative tool in

order to identify the preferences of elected officials, revealing both what they support and

what they chose to ignore. Early black leaders used a similar mechanism by way of the

107

“bully pulpit,” or their ability to help define the city’s agenda through their words as a way to forward their interests. For example, in 1974 Maynard Jackson, Atlanta’s first

African-American mayor, pushed to expand the Hartsfield airport into an international hub and required that 25 percent of all contracts go to minority owned businesses.

Jackson’s advocacy on this issue led to a 38 percent increase in the number of contracts awarded to minority owned businesses within five years of his tenure as mayor (Dingle

2005). Current black elected officials still have access to public venues where they can publicly launch their agenda. One mechanism for launching such an agenda is through public talk.

5.2 Public Talk: The Least They Can Do

Cohen (1999) describes the state of many urban areas prior to and during the growth of HIV/AIDS as a national epidemic. Cities that had elected their first African-

American mayors in the 1970s were quickly met with dwindling municipal budgets, a mass exodus of whites from their cities, and a growing need to provide social services for an increasingly unemployed population. Cohen (1999) comments that early African-

American mayors of the 1970s who provided redistributive benefits for a once disenfranchised constituency revised their philosophy or were replaced by representatives who supported corporate strategies for urban economic development. However despite the economic challenges facing cities at the time, African-American leaders of these cities still had influence of the public agenda through public talk. Cohen therefore comments,

“At the very least, these officials had access to their local “bully pulpits,” so that they could make AIDS a priority for their constituencies.” (Cohen 1999, 89)

108

Here Cohen suggests that “these officials” or more specifically local mayors of “the cities

that would become the epicenters of AIDS in the United States: New York, Los Angeles,

Newark, Atlanta, Chicago, and Detroit” had at least two options to influence the public

agenda in their cities (Cohen 1999, 89). They could choose to speak thereby using public

talk as a vehicle for political change or they could choose to remain silent thereby

signaling there support for the status quo.

Locally elected officials have three available options to signal their preference on

an issue through public talk. Local representatives can engage in public talk that shows

their support for an issue. Alternatively, local representatives can engage in public talk that shows that they do not support an issue. Finally, local representatives can choose to remain silent thereby showing either their indifference towards an issue or their unwillingness to absorb the cost of speaking on a controversial issue. The criteria, as outlined by Pitkin (1967), require that representatives act in a manner that is responsive to the constituency that they represent. Using public talk as a vehicle for political action therefore requires that local representatives speak about issues that disproportionately impact their communities in order to place the issue on the general public agenda.

Additionally, using public talk as a vehicle for political action requires that these same representatives continue to talk about these issues in order to ensure that they remain on that agenda. The HIV/AIDS epidemic in African-American communities ensures that local representatives have the chance to engage in all three forms of public talk.

However, Cohen (1999) notes that contextual factors may influence this decision-making process for local African-American representatives.

109

5.3 Limited Engagement Due to Marginalization Theory

In her 1999 text The Boundaries of Blackness: HIV/AIDS and the Breakdown of

Black Politics, Cathy Cohen examines the political process of black communities. She examines why certain issues are included on the black political agenda while others are

excluded. Like many authors, Cohen acknowledges that African Americans share a common experience that is based in racial oppression and exclusion from the full benefits of American citizenry. Dawson (1994) argues that African Americans have responded to these experiences by constructing a linked fate using the black utility heuristic.

According to Dawson, African Americans determine what is good for the advancement of the group and use it as a proxy for evaluating what is good for each African American individually. Linked fate, as it is commonly called, then overrides divisions within the group, particularly those related to gender and social class, while elevating consensus issues.

Cohen’s work challenges these concepts of political homogeneity and linked fate.

Cohen claims instead that …

“… where once consensus issues dominated the political agendas of most black organizations, these concerns are now being challenged and sometimes replaced by cross- cutting issues and crises rooted in or built on the often hidden differences, cleavages, or fault lines of marginal communities.” (Cohen 1999, 9)

With this, Cohen explains that where consensus issues are thought to impact the

marginalized groups at equal proportions, cross cutting issues disproportionately and

directly affect only certain members of a marginalized group. Unlike in the concept of

linked fate, these cross-cutting issues are not overridden within the group. Instead, as

110

Cohen states, they have the power to challenge and replace consensus issues within marginalized groups.

The marginalization process frames certain groups as outsiders, apart from the dominant society. Cohen (1999) claims that marginalization robs the group of full access

to the economic, political, and social resources that are used to guarantee access to the

rights and privileges afforded to members of the dominant group. The process of marginalization is reinforced and sustained by identities and norms, ideologies, institutions, and social relationships.

Cohen (1999) also describes a process of secondary marginalization where members of the marginalized group replicate the marginalization process for members within their own group. During secondary marginalization, marginalized group members redefine what it means to be a member of and be accepted by the group. Persons who experience secondary marginalization are perceived as being of questionable moral standing within the group and contradict the image of respectability that group leaders attempt to portray. In effect, members of the marginalized group erect boundaries that define who will receive the limited resources and privileges of marginalized group membership. Individuals who operate or are perceived to operate outside of these boundaries are in a dire situation, as they are denied membership from both the dominant society and the marginalized group. Cohen claims that their concerns and needs, irrespective of their severity, are left outside of the boundaries of group membership and that they are particularly vulnerable to a state of both social and political isolation.

According to Cohen (1999), the proliferation of consensus issues used to combat a status of marginalization from the dominant group has masked the prevalence of

111

secondary marginalization for African Americans with cross-cutting issues. Secondary

marginalization directly impacts both individuals and families who struggle with cross-

cutting issues and limits their opportunities to mobilize for political change. Further,

secondary marginalization permits silence, irresponsibility, and a lack of political

leadership on cross-cutting issues. One cross-cutting issue is sexuality in general and

homosexuality specifically. This context helps to explain the current HIV/AIDS

epidemic in African-American communities.

5.4 HIV/AIDS and the African-American Community

Ten years after Cohen’s writings, the issue of HIV/AIDS remains an epidemic

within the African-American community. The Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) reported that as of 2006, 1.1 million people who have been diagnosed

with AIDS since the beginning of the epidemic (CDC 2009). In this same year, CDC

also reported that African Americans accounted for 46 percent of all new HIV infections

while only making up 13 percent of the U.S. population (CDC 2009).

The faces of people who are most at risk for contracting HIV/AIDS has remained

consistent over recent years. HIV/AIDS continues to impact homosexual and bisexual

men at high rates. According to the CDC’s HIV incidence surveillance system, 73

percent (39,820 out of 54,230) of all new HIV infections in 2006 were in males (CDC

2009). African-American males accounted for 40 percent of all males who were infected with HIV in 2006, 63 percent of which contracted the virus through homosexual contact.

Women comprised the remaining 27 percent (14,410 out of 54,230) of all new HIV infections in 2006. African-American women accounted for 61 percent of all females

112

who were infected with HIV in 2006, 83 percent of which contracted the virus through

heterosexual contact (CDC 2009).

In addition to an HIV/AIDS epidemic in the African-American community, the

disease is concentrated in specific states and metropolitan areas across the country. In

2007, much of the HIV/AIDS epidemic for African Americans was concentrated in 10

states; New York, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, California, Texas, New Jersey,

Pennsylvania, Illinois, and the District of Columbia. These places housed 71 percent of

African Americans who were estimated to be living with AIDS in 2007 and additionally

account for 68 percent of newly reported AIDS cases in 2007.12

Metropolitan areas are more impacted than suburban or rural areas in reported

AIDS cases. In 2007, metropolitan areas like Miami, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and

Washington reported the highest rates of new AIDS diagnoses at over 30 per 100,000

people.13 Cities like New York, Los Angeles and Miami accounted for a significant number of people who were newly diagnosed with AIDS in 2007 (CDC 2009).14

This information supports two conclusions. First, HIV/AIDS is a worsening epidemic within the African-American community that affects black men and women at grossly disproportionate rates compared to all other racial and ethnic groups. Second,

12 While New York, Florida and Georgia accounted for the largest number of African Americans estimated to be living with AIDS in 2007, this has not always been the case. In 2001, 2003, and 2004, New York, Florida and California accounted for the largest number of African Americans estimated to be living with AIDS. In 2005, New York, Florida and Texas held this title. It was not until 2006 that Georgia became one of the top three states accounting for the largest number of African Americans estimated to be living with AIDS (Kaiser 2009).

13 In 2007, the highest rates of new AIDS diagnoses were in the following cities; Miami, FL 33.1 per 100,000 people, New Orleans, LA 31.5 per 100,000 people, Baton Rouge, LA 31.4 per 100,000 people and Washington 30.5 per 100,000 people (CDC 2009).

14 In 2007, the highest numbers of new AIDS cases were in New York (202,305), Los Angeles (60,583), and Miami (58,554) (Kaiser 2009) 113

HIV/AIDS among African Americans is concentrated in central cities where many

African Americans live, thereby making HIV/AIDS an urban problem.

Given the severity and the concentration of HIV/AIDS in metropolitan centers, I

examine both African-American public opinions towards HIV/AIDS and public talk

regarding HIV/AIDS by black mayors. I ask if mayors of cities that are

disproportionately impacted by HIV/AIDS respond to concerns of their African-

American constituency regarding HIV/AIDS or remain silent, thereby failing to offer an

important form of representation and doing little to redefine how their constituents,

specifically their African-American constituents, address the HIV/AIDS epidemic in their

communities.

Using this framework, the following text examines (1) changes in African-

American public opinion about HIV/AIDS and (2) instances of public talk among black

elected representatives regarding the issue of HIV/AIDS. I expect that African

Americans will consistently voice concern over the growing HIV/AIDS cases in their

communities. This is distinctly different from the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic

where both African-American leaders specifically and African Americans generally

dismissed HIV/AIDS as a disease that impacted the white homosexual community. As

Cohen (1999) points out, the process of secondary marginalization muted conversations

about the potential and eventual reality of HIV/AIDs in the African-American

homosexual community and prevented conversations about HIV/AIDS among a growing

number of African-American women and youth. I expect that as the HIV/AIDS epidemic

becomes harder to ignore, these opinions will depict the disproportionate impact

HIV/AIDS has in African-American communities. Hypothesis one captures this logic.

114

H1: African Americans will express greater levels of concern about HIV/AIDS compared to other racial and ethnic groups.

In order to provide symbolic representation to their constituents, I expect that local minority representatives will engage in public talk that addresses the needs of the

African-American community. Recall that Sinclair-Chapman defined symbolic representation as “acts aimed at giving voice to group interests to enhance political deliberation that addresses the concerns of disadvantaged groups” (Sinclair-Chapman

2002, 8). I argue that local minority representatives will engage in acts of public talk in order to voice concerns about HIV/AIDS in African-American communities.

Alternatively, if local minority representatives fail to engage in these acts of public talk I argue that they have failed to provide symbolic representation in an immensely important policy and public health area for their constituents. Hypothesis two captures this point.

H2: Greater levels of concern about HIV/AIDS among African Americans will be associated with greater instances of public talk by local minority representatives regarding HIV/AIDS.

5.5 Methods for Analyzing Symbolic Representation through Public Talk

In order to examine what African Americans think about HIV/AIDS in their community, I examine public opinion by African Americans regarding HIV/AIDS from

1995-2009 and I evaluate instances of public talk about HIV/AIDS by national black media sources from 2000-2009. I relied on public opinion data from surveys that were conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in order to document changes in the public opinion of African Americans regarding the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The Kaiser Family

Foundation has collected information on public opinions on HIV/AIDS since 1995. The

115

survey has changed names over the course of its history but remains a nationally

representative random sample of adults ages 18 and older. The surveys are conducted by

telephone in both English and Spanish and includes an over sample of African Americans

and Latinos. Results for all groups are weighted to reflect the actual portions of racial

groups in the United States.

I also examined public opinion by African Americans regarding HIV/AIDS by

evaluating instances of public talk about HIV/AIDS in national black magazines. Public

talk on this topic was evaluated through computer-aided content analysis of information

stored in electronic databases. I selected the following national black magazines; Black

Enterprise, Ebony, Essence, and Jet. I selected these magazines because they remain the premier sources of African-American media, and cover a wide range of topics.

Additionally, all four magazines have been in publication well before the HIV/AIDS epidemic began in the 1980s and, as the upcoming results will show, have continued to

document the development HIV/AIDS as the epidemic progressed.15 For the computer-

aided content analysis I used the following search terms in order to identify instances of

public talk about HIV/AIDS and its specific impact in the African-American community

in national black magazines: HIV and African Americans; AIDS and African Americans;

and HIV/AIDS and African Americans. Articles were initially selected for this study if

they included a combination of the search terms in either the title or the body of the

articles. I further refined the resulting list of articles by evaluating its content and

removing articles that did not address HIV/AIDS and African Americans

15Ebony, Jet, Black Enterprise, and Essence magazines began publications in 1945, 1951, 1970, and 1970 respectively. Black Enterprise, Ebony and Essence magazines are published monthly, while Jet magazine is published weekly.

116

In order to determine whether African-American representatives provided symbolic representation regarding HIV/AIDS, I documented instances of public talk by city mayors from 2000-2009. As before, I am using a computer-aided content analysis of electronic databases. These mayors must govern cities that have both a history of

minority representation and a disproportionate number of African Americans with

HIV/AIDS. I then compare the results of this local analysis to trends in African-

American opinions about HIV/AIDS revealed through both national surveys and public

talk in black media. Based on these criteria, I focus the following analysis on public talk

by Atlanta mayors. This method allows me to determine if mayors in Atlanta, GA discuss

the role of HIV/AIDS as a national epidemic, a local epidemic, or a disease that

disproportionately impacts African Americans. Conversely, this method also allows me

to determine if Atlanta mayors neglect to discuss HIV/AIDS at all, thereby remaining

silent on a pervasive epidemic within the African-American community.

I selected the following newspapers to examine instances of public talk about

HIV/AIDS by Atlanta mayors: the Atlanta Daily World, the Atlanta Journal Constitution,

and the Atlanta Tribune.16 Each newspaper provides a venue to communicate political,

economic, and social information to the African-American community and Atlanta

residents overall. Public talk on this topic was evaluated through computer-aided content

analysis of information stored in electronic databases. I used the following search terms

in order to identify instances of public talk about HIV/AIDS and its specific impact in the

16 The Atlanta Daily World and the Atlanta Inquirer are local newspapers that cater to the African American community in the Atlanta metropolitan area. These newspapers began publication in 1931 and 1960 respectively. The Atlanta Journal Constitution is a daily newspaper that services the Atlanta metropolitan area. Once operating as separate newspapers, the Atlanta Journal and the Atlanta Constitution, the newspaper began publishing as the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 2001. For purposes of this publication all references to the Atlanta Journal Constitution will also include information from the Atlanta Journal and the Atlanta Constitution. 117

African-American community: HIV and African Americans; AIDS and African

Americans; and HIV/AIDS and African Americans. Further, I supplemented the aforementioned search terms with the following search terms in order to conduct a content analysis for instances of public talk by Atlanta mayors; Bill Campbell,

HIV/AIDS, and African Americans; Shirley Franklin, HIV/AIDS, and African

Americans; and Kasim Reed, HIV/AIDS, and African Americans. Articles were initially selected for this study if they included a combination of the search terms in either the title or the body of the articles. I further refined the resulting list of articles by evaluating its content and removing articles that did not address HIV/AIDS, African American and black representation by Atlanta mayors.

5.6 Results

5.6.1 Changing Opinions about HIV/AIDS in the African-American Community

Public opinion about HIV/AIDS reveals the disparate impact of the disease on minority groups in the United States. From 1995-2009, African Americans more than any other group surveyed listed HIV/AIDS as the most urgent health problem facing the nation. In 1995 alone, approximately 56 percent of African Americans surveyed listed

HIV/AIDS as the most urgent health problem facing the nation compared to 51 percent of

Latino Americans and 42 percent of whites who reported the same. By 2009, 22 percent of African Americans who were surveyed listed HIV/AIDS as the most urgent health problem facing the nation compared to just 9 percent of Latino Americans and 2 percent of whites. While Figure 5.1 shows that African Americans have consistently listed

HIV/AIDS as the most urgent health problem facing the nation, it also reveals decreasing

118

concern about the disease over time. This is troubling because this decrease is taking place amidst a worsening HIV/AIDS epidemic within the African-American community.

Figure 5.1: Trend in Naming HIV/AIDS as Most Urgent Health Problem by Race/Ethnicity About Here

Public opinion about HIV/AIDS also reveals that African Americans are individually concerned about becoming infected with HIV more than any other racial group. When survey respondents were asked to rank how concerned they were about becoming infected with HIV, approximately 51 percent of African Americans surveyed in 2009 reported that they were either very concerned or somewhat concerned about becoming infected with HIV. This mimics a trend among minorities in general, as both

African Americans and Latino Americans have reported greater levels of concern about becoming infected with HIV over time compared to whites.

Figure 5.2: Percent Who Are “Very Concerned” about Becoming Infected with HIV About Here

In 2004, survey respondents were asked to rank the amount of prejudice and discrimination that people living with HIV/AIDS faced in the country. On average, 45 percent of survey respondents reported that people living with HIV/AIDS faced “a lot” of prejudice and discrimination. This number was much greater among African-American respondents, as 61 percent of respondents reported that people living with HIV/AIDS faced “a lot” of prejudice and discrimination. These numbers suggest that while a process of marginalization occurs for people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States,

African Americans perceive that this process occurs to a much greater extent in their

119

communities. This could suggest that the process of secondary marginalization continues

to occur for people who are both African American and living with HIV/AIDS.

Figure 5.3: Perceptions of Prejudice and Discrimination Against People Living with HIV/AIDS in the U.S. About here

HIV/AIDS is an important public health issue for the African-American

community. Unlike in the early years of HIV/AIDS, many African Americans report

HIV/AIDS as the most urgent public health concern in the nation. Many African

Americans also report personal concerns about becoming infected. Given the spread of

HIV/AIDS throughout the African-American community, personal concerns held by

African Americans about becoming infected with HIV/AIDS, and sustained federal efforts to combat this virus HIV/AIDS should have a permanent place on the political agenda of elected representatives generally and black representatives in particular. This issue offers representatives a chance to provide representation to their constituents on an issue that has received a large consensus of concern.

5.6.2 Public Talk about HIV/AIDS in National African-American Magazines

From 2000-2009, national black magazines displayed a great degree of variance in their coverage of HIV/AIDS. Articles that focused on HIV/AIDS generally focused on four main themes: HIV/AIDS as a crisis in the African-American community, HIV/AIDS as a national epidemic, HIV/AIDS as a threat to African-American women, and the role of activism in eliminating HIV/AIDS. Ebony magazine included a total of 67 articles that focused on HIV/AIDS. Ebony magazine was followed by Essence magazine with 52

120

total articles on this issue. Jet magazine published a total of 39 articles followed by Black

Enterprise magazine which published a total of 26 articles.

Table 5.1: Count of HIV/AIDS Articles in National African-American Magazines 2000-2009 About here

Articles in all national magazines devoted the greatest percentage to articles that

reiterated the HIV/AIDS crisis in African-American communities. From 2000-2009,

Essence magazine devoted 21 (40 percent) of its 52 articles to discussing the crisis of

HIV/AIDS in African-American communities. Essence was followed by Ebony

magazine with 16 (24 percent) of its 52 articles, Jet magazine with 12 (31 percent) of its

39 articles and Black Enterprise with 10 (42 percent) of its 26 articles all devoted to discussing the crisis of HIV/AIDS in African-American communities.

Figures 5.5-5.8: Analysis of HIV/AIDS Articles in Black Enterprise, Ebony, Essence, and Jet Magazines 2000-2009 About Here

Articles in Ebony, Essence and Black Enterprise devoted a substantial portion of its total articles to discussing the disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS on African-

American women. Ebony magazine published the largest number of articles on this topic.

Ebony was followed by Essence, Black Enterprise and Jet magazines. Articles in these magazines highlighted the growing rates of infection among African-American women and noted that the vast majority of these new infections came through heterosexual contact rather than dirty drug needles or blood transfusions. What is implicit but not

directly stated in the content of these articles is the issue of homosexuality and

bisexuality among African-American men in these discussions. This is to be expected

121

since, as Cohen writes, sexuality in general and homosexuality specifically have been a factor used to marginalize certain blacks out of the African-American community.

Most of the articles that discuss HIV/AIDS and African-American women discuss the rates of infection among African-American women but also encourage African-

American women to take responsibility for their own health. For example in a 2004

Ebony article entitled “ Why Sisters are the Number 1 Victims of HIV and How You can

Avoid it,” the author writes the following..

“Who's really to blame for this raging epidemic that is killing so many Black women and poisoning Black male and female relationships?

As it stands now, the "Down-Low Brother" -- that unscrupulous fellow who has unprotected sex with other men behind his wife's or girlfriend's back -- has emerged as public enemy No. 1 to every Sister in the 'hood.

But HIV activists fear that the collective anger against the Down-Low participants -- and the fact that their risky sexual behavior is indeed infecting scores of unsuspecting women -- may unintentionally deflect attention away from the fact that there are other major factors that can lead to HIV.” Hughes 2004

The author goes on to list five additional factors that are related to the increase in

infections among African-American women, including drug abuse, engaging in

unprotected sex with partners who are at risk, and poverty.

National African-American magazines have made HIV/AIDS a part of the topics

that receive substantial coverage. While there were variations in the number of articles

devoted to HIV/AIDS among the four selected magazines, each magazine established a

forum to engage in public talk about HIV/AIDS as a public health crisis in African-

American communities and addressed many of the cross-cutting issues that contribute to

its prevalence. Based on Harris-Lacewell’s work, this venue of public talk should help to

122

inform political leaders of the issues that are important to their constituents. One such

group of political leaders is black mayors.

5.6.3 Public Talk by Locally Elected Representatives in Atlanta Newspapers

Atlanta is a unique city. It holds a legacy for being a centerpiece of the civil rights movement and has a rich political history in local politics. In 1973, African Americans solidified their political power behind Maynard Jackson making him the first African-

American mayor of Atlanta. The effects of this decision has been felt by Atlanta residents for nearly four decades, as all of Atlanta’s subsequent mayors until 2010 were affiliated with or directly endorsed by Jackson. In 2009, the city elected Kasim Reed, former African-American Georgia State Representative, as Atlanta’s 59th mayor. Reed’s victory was not without significant competition that nearly brought the reign of African-

American mayors in Atlanta to an end. Reed ultimately won against opponent Mary

Norwood in a runoff election by a mere 847 votes.

Atlanta is also unusual in its experience with rising numbers of persons infected or living with HIV/AIDS. According to the CDC, in 2007Atlanta had a rate of 23 per

100,000 people who were diagnosed with AIDS, making it eleventh in the rate of new

AIDS cases for all metropolitan areas with 500,000 or more in population. The state of

Georgia has been experiencing a rise in HIV/AIDS cases since the beginning of the epidemic. Georgia has the seventh highest number of African Americans who have been diagnosed with AIDS since the beginning of the epidemic through 2007.17 The state has

17 States with the ten highest rates of African Americans who have been diagnosed with the AIDS since the beginning of the epidemic include: Maryland (78.6 per 100,000 ), District of Columbia (78.3 per 100,000), South Carolina (72.4 per 100,000), Mississippi (69.5 per 100,00), North Carolina (67.0 per 100,000), 123 also experienced a sharp rise in the number of African Americans currently living with

AIDS. In 2007, Georgia had an estimated 12,000 African Americans living with AIDS.

This is a 44 percent increase from the number of African Americans living with AIDS in the state in 2001.

However, despite a history of minority representation, a disproportionate rise in the number of new AIDS cases and high levels of concern about HIV/AIDS within the

African-American community, HIV/AIDS has taken on a less than prominent role in the public talk of local representatives.

Figure 5.4: HIV/AIDS as the Most Urgent Health Concern for African Americans vs. Total Count of HIV/AIDS Articles in the Atlanta Newspapers from 2000-2009 About here

From 2000-2009, the Atlanta Journal Constitution published over 3000 articles on

HIV/AIDS and 805 articles on both HIV/AIDS and African Americans. However, a closer inspection on the role of locally elected representatives tells another story. From

2000-2009, the Atlanta Journal Constitution published just 11 articles that included public talk about the HIV/AIDS epidemic by an Atlanta mayor. This is similar to evidence in both the Atlanta Daily World and the Atlanta Inquirer. From 2000-2009, the

Atlanta Daily World published 45 articles about HIV/AIDS in general and 32 articles about HIV/AIDS in African-American communities. Of this total, 1 article included public talk about the HIV/AIDS epidemic by an Atlanta mayor. Finally from 2000-

2009, the Atlanta Inquirer published 161 articles about HIV/AIDS in general and 98

Delaware (66.7 per 100,000), Georgia (66.3 per 100,000), Alabama (62.1 per 100,000), Louisiana (60.7per 100,000), and Michigan (57.6 per 100,000). 124

articles about HIV/AIDS in African-American communities. None of these articles

included instances of public talk by Atlanta mayors.

Table 5.2: Count of HIV/AIDS Articles in the Atlanta Newspapers 2000-2009 About here

The study time span, 2000-2009, covers the terms of two African-American

Atlanta mayors, Bill Campbell and Shirley Franklin, as well as the election of Atlanta’s

current mayor, Kasim Reed. Bill Campbell served as Atlanta’s mayor from 1994-2001.

Franklin followed Campbell and served as mayor of Atlanta, GA from 2001-2009.

Of the 11 articles that included one of Atlanta’s mayors and HIV/AIDS, 1 article documented Mayor Campbell’s attendance at a health conference that discussed

HIV/AIDS among African-American women. Two articles discussed different components of an AIDS Task Force commissioned by former Mayor Bill Campbell. One article discussed Mayor Franklin’s attendance at an AIDS quilt memorial service. One article mentioned Mayor Franklin’s attendance at an annual AIDS walk, while 5 articles discussed Mayor Franklin’s work with CARE, an international humanitarian group. One remaining article discusses mayoral candidate Kasim Reed’s support for mandatory

HIV/AIDS testing of Atlanta inmates. 18

Figure 5.9: Analysis of HIV/AIDS Articles in the Atlanta Journal Constitution 2000-2009 About Here

18 The Atlanta Daily world included one instance of public talk by Shirley Franklin regarding HIV/AIDS. The article commented on Franklin’s attendance at an AIDS walk. This was also covered by the Atlanta Journal Constitution and will therefore not be commented on separately. 125

In March 2001, Mayor Bill Campbell introduced Operation WAVE (War Against

the Virus is Escalating). Operation WAVE was focused on preventing the spread of

HIV/AIDS among African-American youth. The mayor collaborated with Atlanta-based

radio station Radio One to encourage listeners to participate in HIV screening tests, and

the radio station featured weekly public service announcements and bimonthly

community activities that focused on HIV/AIDS prevention. The Fulton County

Department for Health and Wellness provided HIV screenings and information to participants. Other sponsors included Fulton County, Cash America International,

Priority Records and DuPont Pharmaceuticals. In one article, Mayor Campbell was recorded as saying,

"HIV and AIDS is now the leading cause of death for African-Americans between the ages of 25 and 44, and it is on the rise…This is an important issue at a critical time, and we are delighted that we have new partners in this effort that will make certain accurate information is offered to a younger African-American community." Pean 2001

Shirley Franklin’s tenure as Atlanta’s mayor was uniquely silent on the

prevalence of HIV/AIDS among Atlanta’s African-American residents. As previously

stated, the vast majority of articles that referenced Franklin, HIV/AIDS, and African

Americans focused on Franklin’s international visits to both South Africa in 2006 and to

India in 2008. Both of these visits were sponsored by CARE, an international

humanitarian group and in conjunction with CARE’s “I Am Powerful” campaign which

assists women in learning entrepreneurial skills. Before leaving for her trip to India,

Franklin said,

126

“I am pleased to have been involved in CARE's I Am Powerful campaign to see firsthand women from all over the world who are finding their voice through this public education effort…The trip to India will highlight some of the solutions that CARE is offering to combat the social and economic problems that have exacerbated the HIV/AIDS crisis in that country." Stirgus 2008

This was Franklin’s last comment regarding HIV/AIDS. There is no evidence to suggest that her efforts abroad resulted in any substantive changes or an increase in public talk regarding HIV/AIDS for African Americans living in Atlanta, GA.

5.7 Conclusion

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that 60 percent of all estimated AIDS cases since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic have been among racial and ethnic minorities. African Americans have been impacted the most among this group. Surveys of African Americans indicate that public opinion regarding

HIV/AIDS reflects the severity and heightened levels of concern among African

Americans about their own safety from the disease, while national black magazines highlight the disastrous effect of HIV/AIDS on African-American communities.

However, despite all of this information, African-American mayors in Atlanta, GA have provided little representation on the issue of HIV/AIDS through public talk. In Atlanta,

GA, a city with a rate of 23 per 100,000 people who were diagnosed with AIDS in 2007, just 12 articles in a 9 year span included comments by city mayors about HIV/AIDS in the African-American community.

In 1999, Cathy Cohen stated that “whatever these officials perceive as their duty, we have now reached a point in black politics where all who proclaim leadership must be held accountable for their actions as well as their silence” (Cohen 1999, 338). Perhaps

127

Cohen was more optimistic in her hopes for black politics than the leadership of minority

representatives and the demands of minority constituents reveal. Rather than minority

leadership that is accountable or even responsive, the aforementioned evidence suggests

that there continues to be a pervasive and deadly silence regarding the HIV/AIDS

epidemic. In conclusion, while the HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to plague African-

American communities at a disproportionate rate compared to all other racial and ethnic

groups, there is no consistent level of public talk by Atlanta mayors regarding this

epidemic. In fact, this data would suggest that the HIV/AIDS epidemic in African-

American communities is not on the local agenda but instead operates well beyond the boundaries of blackness.

128

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

Black Enterprise 3 5 2 0 3 3 2 5 1 2 26

Ebony 4 9 6 8 10 4 5 11 8 2 67

Essence 7 4 3 4 6 1 11 9 7 0 52

Jet 4 5 4 6 2 1 2 8 7 0 39

*This table documents the number of articles published by national African-American magazines that focused on HIV/AIDS *Counts are based on a content analysis using the following terms HIV/AIDS, HIV/AIDS, and African Americans.

Table 5.1: Count of HIV/AIDS Articles in National African-American Magazines 2000-2009

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

Atlanta Journal Constitution 1 2 2 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 11

Atlanta Daily World 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Atlanta Inquirer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*This table documents the number of articles published by Atlanta newspapers that included comments by an Atlanta mayor on HIV/AIDS *Counts are based on a content analysis using the following terms HIV/AIDS, HIV/AIDS and African Americans; Bill Campbell and HIV/AIDS; Shirley Franklin and HIV/AIDS; Kasim Reed and HIV/AIDS.

Table 5.2: Count of HIV/AIDS Articles in Atlanta Newspapers 2000-2009

129

*Data Source: Kaiser Family Foundation Surveys of American Americans on HIV/AIDS

Figure 5.1: Trend in Naming HIV/AIDS as Most Urgent Health Problem by Race/Ethnicity

130

*Data Source: Kaiser Family Foundation Surveys of American Americans on HIV/AIDS

Figure 5.2: Percent Who Are “Very Concerned” about Becoming Infected with HIV

131

*Data Source: Kaiser Family Foundation Survey of American Americans on HIV/AIDS conducted March 15-May 11, 2004

Figure 5.3: Perceptions of Prejudice and Discrimination against People Living with HIV/AIDS in the U.S.

132

*The figure to the right displays the percentage of African Americans who named HIV/AIDS as the most urgent health problem facing the nation. This figure is a modification of figure 5.1 because it focuses on African Americans only. Data for this figure comes from the Kaiser Family Foundation Surveys of American Americans on HIV/AIDS.

*The figure to the left displays the total number of articles published by Atlanta newspapers that included comments by an Atlanta mayor on HIV/AIDS. Counts are based on a content analysis using the following terms HIV/AIDS, HIV/AIDS and African Americans; Bill Campbell and HIV/AIDS; Shirley Franklin and HIV/AIDS; Kasim Reed and HIV/AIDS.

Figure 5.4: HIV/AIDS as the Most Urgent Health Concern for African Americans verses Total Count of HIV/AIDS Articles in the Atlanta Newspapers from 2000- 2009

133

*This figure displays the topic area of HIV/AIDS articles in Black Enterprise from 2000-2009 *Percentages reflect the distribution of HIV/AIDS articles on each topic. Total numbers can be found in Table 5.1

Figure 5.5: Analysis of HIV/AIDS Articles in Black Enterprise 2000-2009

134

*This figure displays the topic area of HIV/AIDS articles in Ebony magazine from 2000-2009 *Percentages reflect the distribution of HIV/AIDS articles on each topic. Total numbers can be found in Table 5.1

Figure 5.6: Analysis of HIV/AIDS Articles in Ebony Magazine 2000-2009

135

*This figure displays the topic area of HIV/AIDS articles in Essence magazine from 2000-2009 *Percentages reflect the distribution of HIV/AIDS articles on each topic. Total numbers can be found in Table 5.1

Figure 5.7: Analysis of HIV/AIDS Articles in Essence Magazine 2000-2009

136

*This figure displays the topic area of HIV/AIDS articles in Jet magazine from 2000-2009 *Percentages reflect the distribution of HIV/AIDS articles on each topic. Total numbers can be found in Table 5.1

Figure 5.8: Analysis of HIV/AIDS Articles in Jet Magazine 2000-2009

137

*This figure displays the topic area of HIV/AIDS articles in the Atlanta Journal Constitution from 2000-2009 *Percentages reflect the distribution of HIV/AIDS articles on each topic. Total numbers can be found in Table 5.2

Figure 5.9: Analysis of HIV/AIDS Articles in Atlanta Journal Constitution 2000-2009

138

Chapter 6

Conclusion

The goal of this project was to examine the substantive impact of minority

representation by exploring the role of African-American mayors and city council

members in municipal decision-making and constructing public policy. This project

resumed discussions about the role of minority representatives and asked (1) if minority

representatives work to ensure that substantive benefits are guaranteed to minority

constituents, (2) if minority representatives face unparalleled challenges due to their race

or the economic challenges of the cities that they govern, and (3) if minority

representatives are merely another set of elected officials who protect the status quo? In

order to answer these research questions, I reviewed literature on political representation

in order to identify a working definition that could serve as criteria for evaluating the

presence and quality of various forms of representation. From this review, I determined

that the best way to conceptualize political representation was through a formulation used

by Pitken in her 1967 book The Concept of Representation. Pitken claims the following.

Pitken identifies a key element that was missing from many alternative definitions of

political representation. She argues that representation involves a series of actions

whereby the representative acts for those he represents in a manner that both acknowledges and attempts to respond to their needs. This concept of representation is 139

important for the nation as a whole but particularly important in this project for the plight

of African Americans.

African Americans have experienced a unique history in America, one that is

unlike any other ethnic or racial groups that have come upon these shores. The unique experience of African Americans details a story of unspeakable human suffering and

unimaginable heroism. This same experience helps to create a particular set of needs and demands that reverberate throughout African-American communities. These needs have included the right to vote, full participation in the political system, and the right to defend oneself in the presence of danger. Currently, African Americans are disproportionately in need of employment, economic stability, equal pay, a cure for poverty, and sustained efforts to address diseases like HIV/AIDS that ravage their communities. In order to address these needs, African Americans have turned to the political system and fought to elect members of their own race with the hopes that these individuals will both voice and address their concerns. The success of this strategy has been mixed. Some scholars have found that African-American elected officials were influential in implementing policies and programs that benefited minority residents including securing greater levels of funding for redistributive programs, demanding a greater share of city contracts for minority owned businesses, and ensuring a greater number of African-American administrators (Karnig and Welch 1980, Eisinger 1982a, Browning, Marshall and Tabb

1984, Fraga, Meier and England 1986, Stone 1989, Bayor 1996, Brown 1996, Pomerantz

1996, Brown 2007). Other scholars contend that African-American elected officials were largely ineffective in reaching other noteworthy goals due to economic constraints of the cities they govern, the limited reach of elected officials in changing the governing

140

structure of cities, or a pre-selection process that ensures that those elected have an incentive to maintain the status quo (Keller 1978, Nelson 1977, Reed 1988). This project explores the role of minority representatives of large cities in their efforts, successes, and failures at providing representation on a strategic swath of the total needs and demands of

African-American constituents.

6.1 Minority Representation and the Redistribution of Resources

Chapter 2 begins this examination by exploring the impact of locally elected

African-American representatives in their ability to change the political agenda of cities and implement policies that would be beneficial to minority residents. In order to answer this research question, I pose two competing theoretical frameworks (1) the political empowerment model and (2) the constraint model. The political empowerment model assumes that minority elected officials share the preferences of the minority constituency and have the ability to implement a liberal agenda that will satisfy their needs.

Conversely, the constraint model claims that, regardless of preferences, minority elected officials face a unique set of obstacles in reaching objectives due to limitations of local governments, racial tension in the city, and the general decline of the city’s economic well-being. I examine the percent of resources that were allocated towards three redistributive funding areas; housing, public health, and welfare, for 217 cities in 1997. I use a difference of mean analysis and linear regression to determine whether cities with

African-American mayors and city council members allocate municipal resources in a manner that is significantly different from their white counterparts. I find that in the aggregate, cities with African-American mayors or city council representatives allocate a

141

greater portion of their municipal resources towards public health and welfare compared

to cities without African-American representatives. Cities with African-American city council representatives also allocate a greater portion of their municipal resources

towards housing. If the analysis stopped here, one would presume that minority

representation was associated with greater funding for a majority of the redistributive

areas in this study and that the political empowerment model rather than the constraint

model helped to explain redistributive funding patterns. However, this would be a naive

conclusion. Using a regression model, I also find that when minority representation,

institutional, and socioeconomic variables are combined into a formal model of

redistributive expenditures, having an African-American mayor in 1997 does not help to

explain variations in the proportion of expenditures towards redistributive services and

that the presence of minority city council members helps to explain variations in the

proportion of expenditures for welfare only. Variables from the constraint model,

including poverty, median income, and past spending help to explain much of the

variation in spending for redistributive areas more consistently than variables from the

political empowerment model. My findings reinforce the complexity of evaluating

substantive representation through allocational responsiveness. While an African-

American representative may desire to address the pervasive needs of the African-

American community, he must also operate within a city that has a number of significant

demographic and economic constraints.

142

6.2 Becoming Politically Incorporated – The Atlanta Story

Chapters 3 through 5 explore the impact of minority representation through a case

study of Atlanta, GA. Chapter 3 details the political history and racial turmoil of Atlanta

from the 1930s to 2009. During this time period African-American residents emerged

from political oblivion into prominent players in the city’s decision-making process.

Chapter 3 details how William Hartsfield, mayor of Atlanta for 24 years, initially ignored

African-American demands for better services, equal pay, and equal treatment compared

to whites. Hartsfield revised his political position once Smith v. Allwright in 1944 and

Chapman v. King in 1946 dismantled the all-white Democratic primary which was a

major structural element of segregation. African Americans capitalized on the methods

of segregation that were designed to isolate them. African Americans used their own

institutions, numerical strength, and spatial concentration to master the bloc voting

method and eventually selected candidates of their choosing who they hoped would represent their interests as city resources were being distributed.

Both the emerging political power of African Americans and the strategic repositioning of Mayor Hartsfield resulted in a biracial coalition between members of the

black elite and the white business community. This arrangement, which relegated

African Americans to junior partners in establishing guidance for the city, lasted for

nearly two decades until the 1969 mayoral election where African Americans decided to

choose their own candidate and reject the direction of the white business community.

African Americans chose Sam Massell, a Jewish business owner and vice-mayor for

eight years under Mayor Ivan Allen. Massell promised to be a liberal mayor who would

work with the African-American community and advance their efforts to become fully

143

incorporated members of the governing regime. These promises were quickly dashed as

Massell prepared for an inevitable election between himself and then Vice-Mayor

Maynard Jackson. Massell, embarked on what is still today one of the most racially

divisive and demoralizing campaigns in Atlanta’s history. Massell’s “Atlanta’s Too

Young To Die” campaign relied on racial stereotypes of African Americans in order to

further exacerbate racial fears among whites. His tactics were unsuccessful and likely

contributed to his defeat. Maynard Jackson defeated Massell in the 1973 election to

become the first African-American mayor of Atlanta. African Americans had great

expectations of their newly elected mayor as well as the eleven African-American

members of the city council. However, African Americans would soon learn the

difference between being electorally successfully but stymied as a member of the

governing regime.

Jackson’s first two terms as mayor were full of battles with the white business

community who feared that Jackson would usher in a new governing regime that would

remove them from power. Jackson also faced lingering resentment from the white

community who feared that Jackson would challenge the status quo thereby usurping

their power in local government. Lastly, Jackson faced extraordinary expectations from

the African-American community who expected solutions to long-ignored social ills that

disproportionately impacted their community. Despite these demands from multiple

groups, Jackson embarked on an aggressive affirmative action campaign that allowed

minority businesses to effectively compete for city contracts and empowered

neighborhood groups to become active members of the political process.

144

Atlanta has had only African-American mayors since the election of Jackson in

1973. Jackson was followed by Andrew Young from 1982-1990, Maynard Jackson again

from 1990-1994, Bill Campbell from 1994-2002, Shirley Franklin from 2002-2010, and most recently Kasim Reed who was inaugurated as mayor in January 2010. Atlanta’s story documents a city’s struggle with race and power. African Americans in Atlanta

have won many battles against the barriers of race and racism. However, it is unclear

whether their electoral successes have translated into substantive representation of their

interests.

6.3 Becoming Politically Incorporated – Changing the Governing Regime

Per Browning, Marshall, and Tabb’s construction of political incorporation,

descriptive representation and membership in the dominant governing coalition are the

key elements to ensuring that groups are substantively represented in local government.

Atlanta has long since had descriptive representation in the form of African-American

mayors and large majorities of African Americans on the city council. Chapter 4 tests

whether there is evidence of a changing governing regime due to political incorporation

by way of temporary or sustainable shifts in the priorities of local governments. In

Chapter 4, I posit two alternatives to test for and differentiate between these changes. I

tested whether the presence of Maynard Jackson as the first African-American mayor of

Atlanta and the sustained presence of African-American mayors were associated with

changes in municipal funding for redistributive and general service areas. This model

treats Maynard Jackson’s first two terms, from 1974-1982, as a unique period in

Atlanta’s history that could usher in a fundamental shift in how municipal resources were

145 allocated. I then posit that due to concepts of linked fate all African-American mayors in operate in a different fashion compared to the white mayors that they replaced. I find that only Maynard Jackson was associated increasing per capita funding in the areas of housing and welfare but not public health. However, I find that the presence of African-

American mayors from 1974-2009 did not alter the municipal structure for housing, public health, or welfare. This information suggests that the presence of Jackson in his first two terms provided substantive representation in the form of allocational responsiveness to address certain redistributive preferences of the African-American community. However, the sustained presence of African-American mayors from 1974-

2009 did not.

6.4 Exploring New Boundaries: HIV/AIDS as a Local Crisis

Finally, Chapter 5 examines how minority representatives provide symbolic representation to crisis issues within the African-American community. Despite economic challenges that plagued the city, African-American mayors in many of the cities most impacted by the HIV/AIDS epidemic still had influence of the public agenda through their spoken words. I therefore analyze whether minority mayors engage in instances of public talk as a form of symbolic representation to the HIV/AIDS crisis in

African-American communities and focus this analysis on Atlanta, GA. In order to examine the success of minority representatives in placing HIV/AIDS on the political agenda, I examine public opinion and public talk by African Americans regarding

HIV/AIDS from 1995-2009 and 2000-2009 respectively. I then evaluate subsequent instances of public talk about HIV/AIDS by Atlanta mayors from 2000-2009 in order to

146 determine how African-American mayors responded to the concerns of the African-

American constituency. I analyzed public opinion about HIV/AIDS from 1995-2009 and found that African Americans, more than any other group surveyed, reported HIV/AIDS as the most urgent health problem facing the nation. A majority of African Americans also reported that they were either very concerned or somewhat concerned about becoming infected with HIV. African-American survey respondents highlighted the continued marginalization of persons with HIV/AIDS. In 2004, 61 percent of African-

American survey respondents reported that people living with HIV/AIDS faced a great deal of prejudice and discrimination, sixteen percent more than the average response for other groups.

From 2000-2010, African-American magazines were also talking about

HIV/AIDS and its disproportionate impact on African-American communities.

Magazines such as Ebony, Essence, Black Enterprise, and Jet featured articles that focused on HIV/AIDS as a crisis in the African-American community, HIV/AIDS as a national epidemic, the disproportionate threat of HIV/AIDS to African-American women, and the role of activism in eliminating HIV/AIDS. In total, these magazines published

184 articles that focused on HIV/AIDS, many of which were specific to the impact of

HIV/AIDS in African-American communities. I concluded from both African-American public opinion regarding HIV/AIDS and HIV/AIDS as a prominent topic in national black media sources that African Americans were engaging in public talk about

HIV/AIDS and were expressing a desire for political representation by their elected representatives to address this issue. Unfortunately, African-American mayors in Atlanta have been uniquely silent regarding HIV/AIDS.

147

From 2000-2009, African-American mayors of Atlanta have engaged in just 12 instances of public talk that included references to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. These articles were captured by the major local newspaper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and two smaller black newspapers, The Atlanta Daily World and the Atlanta Inquirer.

Many of these articles documented the presence of an Atlanta mayor at HIV/AIDS conferences or international efforts by an Atlanta mayor to bring attention to the plight of

HIV/AIDS in other countries. Only two articles discussed an active effort by one Atlanta mayor to establish HIV/AIDS in the African-American community as a part of the political agenda. Mayor Bill Campbell instituted an AIDS Task Force which introduced

Operation WAVE (War Against Virus is Escalating) as a collaborative effort with local media and the Fulton County Department of Health to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS among African-American youth. In total, instances of public talk by Atlanta mayors have been minimal and a sustained effort to represent the interests of the African-American constituency has been absent. African-American mayors in Atlanta have largely failed to provide symbolic representation on one of the most pervasive public health epidemics in the African-American community, thereby relegating the HIV/AIDS epidemic far beyond the reach of the local political agenda.

6.5 Final Remarks and Lingering Questions

Political representation serves as an important potential vehicle for representing the needs and preferences of diverse groups. Minority representation has been a key factor in the political emergence of African Americans as African Americans hoped that representation by members of their own group could address the needs that are pervasive

148 in African-American communities. To date we have amassed over forty years of evidence on the successes, failures, unique challenges, and similarities between the ability of African-American representatives to provide substantive representation to those they represent compared to their white counterparts. The evidence thus far has been mixed.

This project adds a bit more clarity to the larger discussions about race and representation. This project confirms that African-American mayors and city council representatives are impeded by constraining factors that plague many central cities including a limited tax base and high-cost citizens. These factors mute many attempts by

African-American mayors and city council representatives to revise the funding structure of the city towards one that addresses the needs of the African-American community.

However, at least in the case of Atlanta, GA, African-American mayors have displayed an unwillingness to consistently engage in public conversations even when a need is established. In the case of HIV/AIDS, Atlanta mayors engaged in limited conversations about a sustained public health epidemic that disproportionately impacts African

Americans who reside within their borders.

In my original construction of Chapter 5: Exploring New Boundaries, I expected to find multiple instances of public talk by Atlanta mayors. I expected further that this chapter would document that HIV/AIDS had an established place on the African-

American agenda due to repeated messages about HIV/AIDS and the disproportionate impact it has within the African American community. I expected that African-American mayors would have adhered to an agenda that included HIV/AIDS in response to sustained demands by the African-American community for leadership on this issue. I

149

had originally planned to categorize the types of public talk on HIV/AIDS as those focused on women and children compared to instances of public talk that discussed

HIV/AIDS among African-American homosexuals. This comparison would have allowed me to critique the continued presence of secondary marginalization for members of the African-American homosexual community and make conclusions about the availability of political, economic, and social resources of the marginalized group depending on the group who is the topic of public talks. I was therefore surprised and disappointed when I found very limited instances of public talk from Atlanta’s black mayors regarding HIV/AIDS irrespective of one’s sub-marginalization status within the

African-American community. This leads me to conclude that more research is needed to

assess why limited instances of public talk about HIV/AIDS exists, what the perceived costs and benefits are of talking about HIV/AIDS, and whether my findings are applicable to other cities that are disproportionately impacted by the disease. However, at present my finding suggest that no black Atlanta constituency is represented when it comes to HIV/AIDS, as this topic continues to be, as Cohen (1999) would phrase it, beyond the boundaries of blackness.

What then can be said of local minority representation and the possibility of substantive representation for the African-American populace? This project would suggest that local minority representation is at a tipping point. Cities are changing in their demographic make-up to include a decreasing proportion of African Americans and those African Americans who remain are expressing frustration in the lack of substantive

changes that have taken place under the leadership on many minority representatives.

African-American residents in cities like Atlanta are reevaluating the value of relying on

150

descriptive representation as a venue that leads to substantive representation. Cities are

also facing a constant battle to remain independent and to control their own futures.

Shirley Franklin alluded to this regarding Atlanta in her 2003 State of the City Business

Address. She commented that Atlanta is defined by its inability to define its own destiny apart from adversarial surrounding counties and an often hostile state government. This begs the need for future research that examines both the role of minority representation in

local governments but also research that critically examines how regional and county

governments directly or indirectly impact this process.

Despite the pitfalls of minority representation, I see vast possibilities for

substantive representation of the African-American populace as long as African

Americans are committed to honestly evaluating the successes and failures of their

elected representatives irrespective of their racial or ethnic background. Additionally,

African Americans must be equally committed to removing elected representatives who

repeatedly disregard their political preferences.

151

Bibliography

Allen, Ivan. 1971. Mayor: Notes on the Sixties. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Atlanta League of Women Voters. 1956. Facts. Atlanta: League of Women Voters of Atlanta-Fulton County.

Bain and Company Pro Bono Project, 2002 Budget Analysis and Benchmarking Final Report, the Bain and Company Pro Bono Project

Barker, Lucius, Mack Jones, and Katherine Tate. 1999. African Americans and the American Political System. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

Bayor, Ronald. 1996. Race and the Shaping of Twentieth Century Atlanta. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Bianco, William. 1994. Trust: Representatives and Constituents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Bobo, Lawrence and Franklin Gilliam. 1990. Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment. The American Political Science Review 84(2): 377-93.

Borders. Lisa. 2009a. Candidate Biography. Unpublished manuscript.

—. 2009b. Caring for Our Community. Unpublished manuscript.

—. 2009c. Getting Our Money’s Worth. Unpublished manuscript.

—. 2009d. Making Atlanta Work. Unpublished manuscript.

—. 2009e. Protecting All of Our Neighbors. Unpublished manuscript.

Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, John Freeman, and Jon Pevehouse. 2009. Time Series Analysis for Social Scientists. Analytical Methods for Social Research Series. Cambridge University Press. Forthcoming

Briffault, Richard. 1990. Our localism, Part 1 – The structure of local government law. Columbia Law Review 90(1):1-115.

Brinck, Kerr and Kenneth Mladenka. 1994. Does politics matter? A time-series analysis of minority employment patterns. American Journal of Political Science 38(November): 918-43.

152

Brown, Robert. 2007. Race and politics matter: African American urban representation and social spending during the urban crisis. The National Political Science Review. 11:17- 41.

—. 1996. Tale of the cities: Urban fiscal policy, the transformation of American cities, and the influence of African American urban representation. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan.

Browning, Rufus, Dale Marshall, and David Tabb. 1984. Protest Is Not Enough: The Struggle of Blacks and Hispanics for Equality in Urban Politics. Berkley: University of California Press.

—. 1986a. Protest Is Not Enough: A Theory of Political Incorporation. Political Science and Politics 19(3): 576-581.

—. 1986b. Is Anything Enough? Political Science and Politics 19(3): 635-640.

Canon, David.1999. Race, Redistricting, Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black-Majority Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Carmichael, Stokley and Charles Hamilton. 1967. Black Power. New York: Random House.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2009. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2007. Vol. 19. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

—. 2008. MMWR Analysis Provides New Details on HIV Incidence in U.S. Populations. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

—. 2008. Subpopulation Estimates from the HIV Incidence Surveillance System --- United States, 2006. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

City of Atlanta. 1962. General Budget. Atlanta. Georgia Budget Commission.

—. 1967. General Budget. Atlanta. Georgia Budget Commission.

—. 1971. General Budget. Atlanta. Georgia Budget Commission.

—. 1973. City Charter. Atlanta. Georgia General Assembly.

—. 2009a. Election Summary Report: General Municipal Election. Unpublished report.

153

—. 2009b. Election Summary Report: General Municipal Election Runoff. Unpublished report.

—. 2010. Mayor Kasim Reed Mayoral Inaugural Address. Unpublished speech.

Clark, Terry N. and Lora C. Ferguson. 1983. City Money: Political Process, Fiscal Strain, and Retrenchment New York. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cole, Leonard. 1974. Electing Black Municipal Office: Structural and Social Determinants. Urban Affairs Quarterly. 8:17-39.

Cohen, Cathy. 1999. The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Craw, Michael. 2006. Overcoming city limits: Vertical and horizontal models of local redistributive policy making. Social Science Quarterly 87(2):361-79.

Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dawson, Michael. 1994. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Dingle. Derek T. 2005. Maynard Jackson: Creating a bully pulpit for black business. Black Enterprise 32 (May).

Eisinger, Peter. 1982a. Black Employment in Municipal Jobs: The Impact of Black Political Power. The American Political Science Review 76(2): 380-92.

—. 1982b. The Economic Conditions of Black Employment in Municipal Bureaucracies. American Journal of Political Science 26(4): 754-71.

Edelman, Murray. 1964. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Elkins, S. 1987. Regimes and the American republic. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Enders, Walter and Todd Sandler, 2004. “An economic perspective on transnational terrorism.” European Journal of Political Economy 20(2): 301-316.

Engstrom, Richard and M.D. McDonald. 1981. The Election of Black to City Councils. American Political Science Review 75: 344-54.

Eulau, Heinz and Paul Karps. 1977. The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly 2(3): 233-254.

Franklin, Shirley. 2003. “State of the City Business Address.” Atlanta: City of Atlanta.

154

Fiorina, Morris. 1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington: Lexington Books

Fraga, Luis, Kenneth Meier, and Robert England. 1986. Hispanic Americans and educational policy: Limits to equal access. Journal of Politics 48(4):850-76.

Gay, Claudine. 2002. Spirals of Trust: The Effect of Descriptive Representation on the Relationship Between Citizens and their Government. American Journal of Political Science 46(4): 717-32.

—. 2001. The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on Political Participation. American Political Science Review 95(3): 589-02.

Gerber, Elisabeth, and Daniel Hopkins. 2009. When mayors matter: Estimating the impact of mayoral partisanship on city policy. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, ON.

Georgia Secretary of State. 2009. Voter Registration System: Active Voters by Race/Gender. Unpublished documents.

Gilliam, Franklin. 1996. Exploring Minority Empowerment: Symbolic Politics, Governing Coalitions, and Traces of Political Style in Los Angeles. American Journal of Political Science. 40(1): 56-81.

Gilliam, Franklin and Kenny Whitby. 1989. Race, Class and Attitudes Toward Social Welfare Spending: An Ethclass Interpretation. Social Science Quarterly 70(1):88- 100.

Gilliam, Franklin and Bruce Wallin. 1990. Municipal Black Political Empowerment and Active Representation. Presented at the Annual meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Atlanta, GA.

Goetz, Edward. 1995. Potential Effects of Federal Policy Devolution on Local Housing Expenditures. Publius 25: 99-116.

Gosnell, Harold. 1935. Negro Politicians: The Rise of Negro Politics in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Greenstone, J. David and Paul Peterson. 1973. Race and Authority in Urban Politics: Community Participation and the War on Poverty. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Guiner, Lani. 1992. The Triumph of Tokenism: The Voting Rights Act and the Theory of Black Electoral Success. Michigan Law Review. 89(5): 1077-1154.

155

Habermas, Jurgen. 1987. Theory of Communicative Action, vol.2: Lifeworld and System: A critique of Functionalist Reason. Translated by Thomas Mccarthy, Boston: Beacon Press.

Hajnal, Zoltan. 2001. White residents, black incumbents and a declining racial divide. American Political Science Review 95(3): 603-617.

Hanyie, Kerry. 2001. African American Legislators in the American States. New York: Columbia University Press.

Harris-Lacewell, Melissa. 2004. Barbershops, Bibles, and BET: Everyday Talk and Black Political Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hughes, Zondra. 2004. Why Sisters are the Number 1 Victims of HIV and How You Can Avoid It. Ebony Magazine (July).

International City Managers Association. 1993. The Municipal Year Book. Chicago: International City Managers Association.

International City Managers Association. 1997. The Municipal Year Book. Chicago: International City Managers Association.

Jackson, Maynard. 1968. Poverty Speech. Robert Woodruff Library Special Collections. Unpublished manuscript.

—.1972. Mayoral Candidate Announcement. Robert Woodruff Library Special Collections. Unpublished manuscript.

Joint Center for Political Studies. 1996. Black Elected Officials: A National Roster. District of Columbia: Joint Center for Political Studies Press.

—. 1993. Black Elected Officials: A National Roster. District of Columbia: Joint Center for Political Studies Press.

Jones, Mack. 1978. Black Political Empowerment in Atlanta: Myth and Reality. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 439: 90-117.

Kaiser Family Foundation. 2009. Survey of Americans on HIV/AIDS: Summary of findings on the Domestic Epidemic. District of Columbia: Kaiser Family Foundation Press.

—. 2004. Survey of Americans on HIV/AIDS: Part One – Global AIDS. District of Columbia: Kaiser Family Foundation Press.

—. 2004. Survey of Americans on HIV/AIDS: Part Two – HIV Testing. District of Columbia: Kaiser Family Foundation Press.

156

—. 2004. Survey of Americans on HIV/AIDS: Part Three – Experiences and Opinions by Race/Ethnicity and Age. District of Columbia: Kaiser Family Foundation Press.

—. 2001. African Americans’ Views of the HIV/AIDS Epidemic at 20Years. District of Columbia: Kaiser Family Foundation Press.

Kaiser Family Foundation. 2009. HIV/AIDS Policy Fact Sheet. District of Columbia: Kaiser Family Foundation Press.

—. 2008. HIV/AIDS Policy Fact Sheet. District of Columbia: Kaiser Family Foundation Press.

—. 2007. HIV/AIDS Policy Fact Sheet. District of Columbia: Kaiser Family Foundation Press.

—. 2006. HIV/AIDS Policy Fact Sheet. District of Columbia: Kaiser Family Foundation Press.

—. 2005. HIV/AIDS Policy Fact Sheet. District of Columbia: Kaiser Family Foundation Press.

—. 2003. HIV/AIDS Policy Fact Sheet. District of Columbia: Kaiser Family Foundation Press.

—. 2002. HIV/AIDS Policy Fact Sheet. District of Columbia: Kaiser Family Foundation Press.

Karnig, Albert and Susan Welch. 1980. Black Representation and Urban Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Keller, Edmond. 1978. The impact of black mayors on urban policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 439: 40-52.

Kraus, Neil and Todd Swanstrom. 2001. Minority Mayors and the Hollow Prize Problem. Political Science and Politics 34(1): 99-105.

LeVeist, Thomas. 1992. The political empowerment and health status of African Americans: Mapping a new territory. The American Journal of Sociology 97(4): 1080-95.

Lewis, William. 1989. Toward representative bureaucracy: Black in city police organizations, 1975-1985. Public Administration Review 49(3): 257-68.

Loewenberg, Gerhard. 1972. "Comparative Legislative Research," in Samuel C. Patter- son and John C. Wahlke, eds., Comparative Legislative Behavior: Frontiers of Research. New York: Wiley.

157

Lublin, David. 1997. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymander and Minority Interests in Congress. Princeton: Princeton University.

Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. Should Black Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent “Yes.” Journal of Politics 61(3): 628-658

Martin, Harold. 1978. William Berry Hartsfield, Mayor of Atlanta. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Massell. Sam. 1973. Atlanta’s Too Young to Die. Atlanta Journal Constitution (October).

—. 1973. Atlanta’s Greatest Black Leader Doesn’t Happen to be Black. Atlanta Journal Constitution (October).

Massey, Douglass and Nancy Denton.1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

McAdams, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McCleary, Richard and Richard Hay. 1980. Applied Time series Analysis for the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

McClerking, Harwood. n.d. A common fate: Group identification in black Americans. Unpublished manuscript.

—. 2001. We Are In This Together: The Origins and Maintenance of Black Common Fate Perceptions. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan.

Miller, Warren and David Stokes. 1963. Constituency Influence on Congress. American Political Science Review. 57:56.

Mlandenka, Kenneth. 1989. Black and Hispanics in urban politics. The American Political Science Review 83(1): 165-91.

Mollenkopf. John. 1978. The Contested City. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

—. 2003. New York: Still the Great Anomaly. In Rufus Browning, Dale Marshall and David Tabb, eds., Racial Politics in American Cities. New York: Longman Press.

Molotch, Harvey. 1976. The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology 82(2): 309-22.

Muller, Edward. 1970. The Representation of Citizens by Political Authorities: Consequences for Regime Support. American Political Science Review. 64(4): 1149-1166.

158

Nelson, William and Philip Meranto. 1977. Electing Black Mayors. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Nelson, William. 2006. Black mayoral leadership in the twenty-first century: Challenges and opportunities. In William E. Nelson and Jessica Perez-Monforti, eds., Black and Latino/Latina Politics: Issues in Political Development in the United States. Miami: Barnhardt and Ashe Publishers.

Oliver, Melvin and Thomas Shapiro. 2006. Black wealth / white wealth: A new prospective on racial inequality. New York: Routledge.

Owens, Chris. 2005. Black substantive representation in state legislatures from 1971- 1999. Social Science Quarterly 84(5):779-91.

Owens, Michael and Michael Rich. 2003. Is Strong Incorporation Enough? Black Empowerment and the Fate of Atlanta’s Low Income Blacks. In Rufus Browning, Dale Marshall and David Tabb, eds., Racial Politics in American Cities. New York: Longman Press.

Parenti, Michael. 1970. Power and pluralism: A view from the bottom. Journal of Politics. 32(3): 501-530.

Pea, Hervey. 2001. HIV/AIDS Drive Zeroes in on Black Community. Atlanta Journal Constitution (March).

Peterson, Paul. 1970. Forms of Representation: Participation of the Poor in the Community Action Program. American Political Science Review. 64(2):491-507.

Peterson, Paul. 1981. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pinderhughes, Dianne. 2003. Chicago Politics: Political Incorporation and Restoration. In Rufus Browning, Dale Marshall and David Tabb, eds., Racial Politics in American Cities. New York: Longman Press.

Pitken, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkley: University of California Press.

Pomerantz, Gary. 1996. Where Peachtree Meets Sweet Auburn: The Saga of Two Families and the Making of Atlanta. New York: Scribner.

Prewitt, Kenneth and Heinz Eulau. 1969. Political Matrix and Political Representation: Prolegomenon to a New Departure from an Old Problem. American Political Science Review. 63(2):427-441.

159

Preuhs, Robert. 2007. Descriptive Representation, legislative leadership and direct democracy: Latino influence on English only laws in the states, 1984-2002. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5(3): 203-24.

—. 2006. The conditional effects of minority descriptive representation: Black legislators and policy influences in the American states. Journal of Politics 68(3):585-99

Reed, Adolph. 1988. The Black urban regime: structural origins and constraints. In Michael Peter Smith. ed., Power, Community and the City. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Reed, Adolph. 1999. Stirrings in the Jug: Politics in the Post-Segregation Era. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Reed, Kasim. 2009. Securing Atlanta: A Blueprint for Restoring Public Safety in Atlanta. Unpublished manuscript.

Rifkin, Jeremy. 1995. The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Sinclair-Chapman, Valeria. 2002. Symbols and substance: How black constituents are collectively represented in the United States Congress through roll-call voting and bill sponsorship. Ph.D. dissertation. Ohio State University.

Smith, Robert. 1996. We have no leaders: African Americans in the post-civil rights era. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Stirgus, Eric. 2008. On Trip to India, Franklin Aims to Boost Women. Atlanta Journal Constitution (February).

Stone, Clarence. 1989. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

Stone, Clarence and Carol Pierannunzi. 1997. Atlanta and the Limited Research of Electoral Control. In Rufus Browning, Dale Marshall and David Tabb, eds., Racial Politics in American Cities. New York: Longman Press.

Stone, Clarence and Haywood Sanders. 1987. The Politics of Urban Development. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

Suggs. Ernie. 2009. Candidate Tills Grassroots Effort: Platform Includes More Transparent Accounting. Atlanta Journal Constitution (August).

Sugrue, Thomas. 1996. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Post-war Detroit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

160

Swain, Carol.1993. Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Swanstrom, Todd. 1988, Semi-Sovereign Cities: The Politics of Urban Development. Polity 21(1): 83-110.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2004. Annual Survey of Governments: Finance Statistics – Technical Documentation. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2004. Government Finance and Employment Classification Manual. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.

Wahlke, John. 1971. Policy Demands and System Support: The Role of the Represented. British Journal of Political Science 1(3): 271-290.

Walton, Hanes and Robert Smith. 2006. American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom. Third Edition. New York: Pearson Education Inc.

Walton, Hanes and Robert Smith. 2010. American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom, 5th Edition. New York : Longman Press.

Whitby, Kenny. 1998. The Color of Representation: Congressional Behavior and Black Interests. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Williams, Louis. 2000. William Berry Hartsfield and Atlanta politics: The formative years of an urban reformer, 1920-1936. Georgia Historical Quarterly 84(4): 651- 676.

Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

161

Appendix A: Cities Used in Chapter 2: Minority Representation and the Redistribution of Resources

ABILENE TX COLUMBUS OH AKRON OH CONCORD GA ALBANY GA CORAL SPRING FL ALBUQUERQUE NM CORONA FL ALEXANDRIA VA CORPUS CHRISTI TX AMARILLO TX COSTA MESA CA ANAHEIM CA DALLAS TX ANCHORAGE AK DAYTON OH ANN ARBOR MI DENVER CO ARLINGTON TX DES MOINES IA ATLANTA GA DETROIT MI AUGUSTA GA DURHAM NC AURORA CO EL MONTE CA AURORA IL EL PASO TX AUSTIN TX ELIZABETH NJ BAKERSFIELD CA ERIE PA BALTIMORE MD ESCONDIDO CA BATON ROUGE-E BATON EUGENE OR ROUGE LA EVANSVILLE IN BEAUMONT TX FLINT MI BERKELEY CA FONTANA CA BIRMINGHAM AL FREMONT CA BOISE ID FRESNO CA BOSTON MA FT COLLINS CO BRIDGEPORT CT FT LAUDERDALE CL BROWNSVILLE TX FT WAYNE IN BUFFALO NY FT WORTH TX GARDEN GROVE CA CEDAR RAPIDS MI GARLAND TX CHANDLER AZ GARY IN CHARLOTTE NC GLENDALE AZ CHATTANOOGA TN CHESAPEAKE VA GLENDALE CA CHICAGO IL GRAND PRAIRIE TX CHULA VISTA CA GRAND RAPIDS MI CINCINNATI OH GREEN BAY WI CLEARWATER FL GREENSBORO NC CLEVELAND OH HAMPTON VA COLORADO SPRINGS CO HARTFORD CT HAYWARD CA COLUMBIA MO HENDERSON NV COLUMBUS SC HIALEAH FL

162

HOLLYWOOD FL NEW HAVEN CT HONOLULU HI NEW ORLEANS LA HOUSTON TX NEW YORK NY HUNTINGTON BEACH WV NEWARK NJ HUNTSVILLE AL NEWPORT NEWS VA INDEPENDENCE MO NORFOLK VA INDIANAPOLIS IN NORWALK CT INGLEWOOD CA OAKLAND CA IRVINE CA OCEANSIDE CA IRVING TX OKLAHOMA OK JACKSON MS OMAHA NE JACKSONVILLE FL ONTARIO CA JERSEY NJ ORANGE CA KANSAS KS ORLANDO FL KANSAS MO OVERLAND PARK KS KNOXVILLE TN OXNARD CA LAFAYETTE LA PALMDALE CA LAKEWOOD CA PASADENA CA LANCASTER PA PASADENA TX LANSING MI PATERSON NJ LAREDO TX PEMBROKE PINES FL LAS VEGAS NV PEORIA IL LEXINGTON-FAYETTE KY PHILADELPHIA PA LINCOLN NE PHOENIX AZ LITTLE ROCK AR PITTSBURGH PA LONG BEACH CA PLANO TX LOS ANGELES CA POMONA CA LOUISVILLE KY PORTLAND OR LOWELL MA PORTSMOUTH VA LUBBOCK TX PROVIDENCE RI MACON GA RALEIGH NC MADISON WI MANCHESTER CT RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA MCALLEN TX RENO NV MEMPHIS TN RICHMOND VA MESA TX RIVERSIDE CA MESQUITE TX ROCHESTER NY MIAMI FL ROCKFORD IL MILWAUKEE WI SACRAMENTO CA MINNEAPOLIS MN SALEM MA MOBILE AL SALINAS CA MODESTO CA SALT LAKE UT MONTGOMERY AL SAN ANTONIO TX MORENO VALLEY CA SAN BERNARDINO CA NAPERVILLE IL SAN DIEGO CA NASHVILLE-DAVIDSON TN SAN FRANCISCO CA SAN JOSE CA 163

SANTA ANA CA TALLAHASSEE FL SANTA CLARITA CA TAMPA FL SANTA ROSA CA TEMPE TX SAVANNAH GA THOUSAND OAKS CA SCOTTSDALE AZ TOLEDO OH SEATTLE WA TOPEKA KS SHREVEPORT LA TORRANCE CA SIMI VALLEY CA TUCSON AZ SIOUX FALLS SD TULSA OK SOUTH BEND IN VALLEJO CA SPOKANE WA VIRGINIA BEACH VA SPRINGFIELD OH WACO TX SPRINGFIELD IL WARREN MI SPRINGFIELD MA WASHINGTON DC ST LOUIS MO WATERBURY CT ST PAUL MI WEST COVINA CA ST PETERSBURG FL WICHITA KS STAMFORD CT WICHITA FALLS TX STERLING HEIGHTS MI WILMINGTON NC STOCKTON CA WINSTON SALEM NC SUNNYVALE CA WORCESTER MA SYRACUSE NY YONKERS NY TACOMA WA

164