Race for Top-Two
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RACE FOR TOP-TWO: HOW THE RACIAL MAKEUP OF A DISTRICT INFLUENCES SAME-PARTY GENERAL ELECTIONS A Thesis Presented to the faculty of the Department of Political Science California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in Government by Rana B. McReynolds SUMMER 2018 © 2018 Rana B. McReynolds ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii RACE FOR TOP-TWO: HOW THE RACIAL MAKEUP OF A DISTRICT INFLUENCES SAME-PARTY GENERAL ELECTIONS A Thesis by Rana B. McReynolds Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Professor Danielle Martin __________________________________, Second Reader Professor Kimberly Nalder __________________________________, Third Reader Professor Brian DiSarro ____________________________ Date iii Student: Rana B. McReynolds I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. __________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________ Professor Brian DiSarro Date Department of Political Science iv Abstract of RACE FOR TOP-TWO: HOW THE RACIAL MAKEUP OF A DISTRICT INFLUENCES SAME-PARTY GENERAL ELECTIONS by Rana B. McReynolds A large body of research has examined the advantages and disadvantages of California’s top-two primary system. Initial research indicates that voters, parties and candidates are still adjusting to the new system. However, few research studies examine why some primaries produce two candidates of the same party. This research set out to determine the relationship between same party general elections and the population of minority groups in a district. The findings of this study indicate a significant relationship between a district’s minority population and the probability of same party general elections, but only in certain types of districts. _______________________, Committee Chair Professor Danielle Martin _______________________ Date v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the support of my family, friends, and professors. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Danielle Martin for not only her guidance, patience and thorough editing of my many thesis drafts, but also for playing a fundamental role in my academic career. I would also like to thank the rest of my thesis committee and the entire Sacramento State Government faculty for their support throughout my undergraduate and master’s program. I am grateful for the tools, knowledge, and relationships I gained. These skills will travel with me as I continue my graduate career. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents for teaching me to shoot for the moon, showing me that all things are possible, and reminding me to do my best every day. Also, to my siblings, thank you for continuously cheering me on and for your unquestionable belief in me even when I doubted my path. Finally, thank you to those who came before me. Without your sacrifice, I would not be where I am today. To those who will come after me, you were my ongoing motivation throughout this long and arduous journey. This is for you. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................... x Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 History of California’s Electoral System ................................................... 1 1.2 Aftermath of Jones ..................................................................................... 7 1.3 California’s Political Districts .................................................................. 15 1.4 Overview of Thesis ................................................................................... 17 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 19 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 19 2.2 Polarization and Top-Two Primaries ........................................................ 19 2.3 Electoral Competitiveness and Top-Two Primaries ................................. 26 2.4 Turnout and Top-Two Primaries .............................................................. 28 2.5 Minor Parties and Top-Two Primaries ..................................................... 30 2.6 Top-Two Primaries and Registration Advantage ..................................... 32 2.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 33 3. RESEARCH QUESTION AND THEORY ......................................................... 34 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 38 vii 3.2 Hypothesis ................................................................................................ 38 4. DATA AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 39 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 39 4.2 Dependent Variable .................................................................................. 39 4.3 Independent Variable ................................................................................ 40 4.4 Control Variables ...................................................................................... 42 4.5 Methodology ............................................................................................. 47 5. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 49 6. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH .................................................... 56 Appendix A. American Community Survey Layout ................................................ 60 Appendix B. Descriptive Statistics for Black, Asian, and Latino Population .......... 62 Appendix C. State Senate and State Assembly Logistic Regression Results ............ 64 Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 66 viii LIST OF TABLES Tables Page 4.1 Number of Same-Party General Elections by District Type in 2016 .............. 40 4.2 Minority Population in Percent for Districts in 2016 ...................................... 42 4.3 Registration Advantage in Percent for Districts in 2016 ................................. 44 4.4 Minor Party Registration in Percent for Districts in 2016 ............................... 46 5.1 Minority Population in Congressional, State Senate, and State Assembly Districts and Same-Party General Elections .................................................... 49 5.2 Minority Population in Congressional Districts and Same-Party General Elections .......................................................................................................... 51 5.3 Black, Asian and Latino Populations in Congressional Districts and Same-Party General Elections. ........................................................................ 53 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page 2.1 The State Legislative Polarization in 2015. ...................................................... 21 5.1 The Predicted Probability of Same-Party General Elections, given the Percentage of the Minority Population in Congressional, State Senate, and State Assembly Districts ........................................................................... 50 5.2 The Predicted Probability of Same-Party General Elections, given the Percentage of the Minority Population in a Congressional District ................ 52 5.3 The Predicted Probability of Same-Party General Elections, given the Percentage of the Latino Population in a Congressional District .................... 54 x 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 History of California’s Electoral System California’s primary election system has a complex history and has evolved over the course the 20th century. When Theodore Roosevelt, a leader in the progressive movement, assumed the presidency following the assassination of President William McKinley in September of 1901, he brought progressivism to a national stage. The Progressive movement arose as a response to the negative effects of industrialization. Progressive reformers sought to harness the power of the federal government to regulate private industry, strengthen protections for workers and consumers, expose corruption in both government and big business, and generally improve society (McGerr, 2005). In the mid-1900s the progressive movement took roots in California. At this time, California politics was dominated by the Southern Pacific Railroad and in 1907, San Francisco Mayor Eugene Schmitz (who was elected by the so-called machine) was indicted on 27 counts of graft and bribery. The prosecuting attorney was an up and coming progressive, Hiram Johnson. This incident was a spark in California’s progressive movement. Thus began California’s trend of experimentation with its electoral system, and over the next century various factions of government (including the