Identifying a Relationship Between Latino Representation in Congress and Trust in Government

By Ricardo Ramirez, Gabriel R. Sanchez, and Shannon Sanchez-Youngmann

Although all eyes will be focused squarely on the race for the white house this year, there are several important races taking place down the ticket that have important implications for the Latino electorate. There are several Latino non-incumbent candidates running for Congress in 2012, with many having legitimate chances to win. You add to this the many Latino incumbents who will be running to retain their seats, and this election could be pivotal for Latino representation in Congress. While future posts closer to the general election will focus on several of the individual races featuring prominent Latino candidates, we discuss the importance of Latino representation in Congress more broadly here. More specifically, drawing from a research paper presented at the recent Midwest Political Science Association meeting, this blog report explores the relationship between Latino representation in Congress and trust in the federal government. Our findings suggest that having more Latinos in Congress leads to positive benefits, including higher levels of trust in government. We believe that this increases the importance of these races, even if the presidential race ends up dominating media coverage and the attention of the public.

Does Descriptive Representation Impact Latino Political Attitudes?

Scholars have been interested in the potential benefits associated with descriptive representation, or in other words, having diversity in political institutions, for some time. While many scholars have approached this from the standpoint of whether Latino elected officials provide better substantive representation than non-Latino representatives, others focus on more in-direct or symbolic benefits. For example, Pantoja and Segura (2003), in their study of Latino elected officials in California and Texas, find that feelings of political alienation significantly diminishes as descriptive representation increases for Latinos. Similarly, utilizing the Latino National Survey (2006), Sanchez and Morin (2011) find that Latino citizens represented by co-ethnic Mayors are less alienated from the political system than those without descriptive representation. In short, the literature in this area suggests that historically disadvantaged groups may derive a positive effect from seeing members of their own communities in positions of power and, in particular, bonds of trust between legislators and their constituents when there is racial/ethnic congruence.

Research Design and Results

Our analysis intends to contribute to this discussion by specifically focusing on whether having a Latino member of Congress has any relationship with trust in government levels among Latino registered voters. To examine this potential relationship, we use data from the 2008 Collaborative Multi-racial Political Study (CMPS).  This telephone survey—conducted between November 9, 2008 and January 5, 2009—is the first multiracial and multilingual survey of registered voters across multiple states and regions in a presidential election. The overall sample (n=4,563)  includes 1,577 completed surveys with Latino respondents.  Furthermore, the Latino sample of the CMPS has tremendous variation by nativity and language use, as 46% of the Latino sample for example chose to conduct the survey in Spanish, and 57% of the sample reports being born in the U.S. This is critical for our efforts of exploring internal variation within the tremendously diverse Latino population.

We matched the race of each respondent with the race of their member of Congress through a congressional district identifier within the data-set. This measure of descriptive representation is our primary explanatory variable, but we also control for a host of other factors in our analysis. For example, because partisan affiliation explains such a wide array of political behavior and voting behavior in particular, we include partisan congruence between the elected official and the respondent as an alternative explanation for variance in trust.

We begin our presentation of results with a brief discussion of the frequencies of our primary explanatory variables. Given that the CMPS sample provides coverage of a large segment of the US electorate, including 92% of all Latino registered voters, we are able to make some assessments regarding the relative descriptive representation levels of each population. We find that 34% of Latinos in our sample have a co-ethnic member of Congress, compared with 44% of African Americans in our sample. This background on the relative rates of descriptive representation are helpful, as they provide some context for our primary inquiry, whether being represented by a descriptive elected official leads to greater trust in government.

Our results indicate that being represented by a co-ethnic member of Congress leads to more positive views of government for Latino registered voters, even when other factors including party congruence are considered. To illustrate the substantive effects of descriptive representation at the congressional level, we conducted post-estimation analyses focused on showing the rise in trust in government with and without descriptive representation while other factors are held constant. As depicted in Figure 1 below, we see that the likelihood of trusting the federal government “most of the time” increases by 4.05% for Latinos. Conversely, trusting the federal government “never at all” decreases by 4.24% for Latinos as one moves from not having descriptive representation to having descriptive representation in Congress. Therefore, the presence of Latinos in Congress has a positive impact on how Latino voters view the federal government more broadly. This is an important finding, as trust in government is a political attitude that impacts political participation and other aspects of political behavior.

Conclusion

In summary, we find that there is a positive relationship between being represented by a co-ethnic member of Congress and trust in the federal government. This is an important finding, as trust in government is a political attitude that impacts political participation and other aspects of political behavior. This suggests that increases in Latino representation in Congress can have important normative consequences for the Latino community, a population whose political salience continues to grow. Consequently, it will be important to follow the prospects of Latino congressional candidates from both parties who can help to contribute to the diversification of the legislative branch of the federal government. Future blog posts will therefore shed some light on how well the parties are cultivating a solid pool of qualified Latino candidates for office and supporting those who are identified as being competitive.

Ricardo Ramirez is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and an expert in Latino political behavior. Gabriel R. Sanchez is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of New Mexico and Research Director for Latino Decisions who has published several articles focused on Latino congressional behavior. Shannon Sanchez-Youngmann is a PhD candidate in Political Science and a Doctoral Fellow of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center for Health Policy at the University of New Mexico.

The commentary of this article reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Latino Decisions.  Latino Decisions and Pacific Market Research, LLC make no representations about the accuracy of the content of the article.

Projecting Latino Electoral Influence in 2012: What Percent of the Latino Vote Candidates Need to Win Each State

Matt A. Barreto, Ph.D. and Gary M. Segura, Ph.D., Latino Decisions

We get asked the question about “Latino influence” from the press weekly—some weeks, daily.  Answering the question is easy if you just make it up, and a fair number of people earn a good living doing so.  But our goal has always been to offer electoral analysis rooted in data, that is objective, and verifiable.

In this effort, we offer not a definitive projection about Latino influence in the 2012 but a way to project that influence and the key factors shaping that estimation.  With the support of the America’s Voice Education Fund, we develop a framework where we can identify critical values of Democratic or Republican vote shares among Latinos that would effectively deliver a state to the respective candidates.  In so doing, we draw on historical vote and turnout data to develop estimates. [ Download slide deck | Watch webinar presentation ]

We begin with three obvious but important premises:

• Presidential elections are won state by state, so any projections in 2012 must be state specific;
• Latino influence in a state is most clearly identified when the Latino margin exceeds the final vote margin—this can occur regardless of the population size—in very close elections, even a small Latino electorate might make the difference, such as Indiana in 2008.
• The likelihood of Latino vote being determinative is dependent on the share of the eventual turnout comprised by Latino voters, the share made up of non-Latino ethnic blocks, and the two-party vote of each.

We cannot know for certain the value of each of those three key measures.  Electoral cycles can differ radically, as anyone who compares 2010 with 2006 and 2008 can readily attest.  But we aren’t completely at sea, either.  We have data regarding vote choice, turnout, and demographic change that can structure our thinking.  Moreover, we can make a range of projections rather than a point estimate and still be instructive.

Using the history of two-party vote by group within each state is a start.  Using high and low estimates of Democratic (or Republican) support for each group, we can estimate a range of possible outcomes in this regard.  Likewise, we can estimate the share of the electorate composed of Latinos and non-Latinos based on the last several elections and population projections for the jurisdiction.  Rolling both of those estimates forward will allow us to project the range of possible outcomes and the critical values for Latinos in determining outcomes.  As the election season progresses, new and better information regarding the state of play within and across demographic groups will allow us to tweak assumptions and, over the course of time, narrow the range of projections and more clearly identify critical Latino vote shares.

Thinking about the National Electorate

We begin with a national projection as an illustration.  The national electorate is illustrated in Figure 1:

Source: Bowler, Shaun and Gary M. Segura, 2011, ‘The Future is Ours’: Minority Politics, Political Behavior and the Multiracial Era of American Politics. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Figure 1 starts in 2008 with the outcome between Barack Obama and John McCain.  In order to predict a range of possible outcomes, we created two lines.  The blue line represents the coalition that propelled Barack Obama to the presidency.  For each year, the expected vote total is equal to the projected electorate share for each group times the same two-party vote distribution found in the 2008 exit polls for that group, and then summed across groups.  Electorate share is driven by population projections from the Census Bureau.  Turnout in each group is held constant at 2008 levels.

While we might have estimated even rosier scenarios for Democrats (for example, assume that Latino turnout grows over time), we erred on the side of caution.  The blue line, then, represents a reasonable upper bound on the possible Democratic vote share.

The red line represents the coalition that propelled the massive GOP gains in 2010. For each year, the expected vote total is equal to the projected electorate share for each group times the same two-party vote distribution found in the 2010 House exit polls for that group, and then summed across groups.  Turnout in each group is held constant at 2010 levels.  Again, we might have assumed even better outcomes for the GOP, but their smashing success in 2010 seems like a reasonable lower bound for Democratic vote share in future elections.

The purple line in the center is the mean of the lower and upper bounds.[1]  As is plain, the GOP faces an increasingly difficult socio-demographic reality.  Even if they hold the 60% share of the non-Hispanic white vote and hold Democratic performance among Latinos to just 60%, the lights go out for them by 2036.  More realistically, things get tough very soon.  Merely splitting the difference between the good Democratic year of 2008 and the good Republican year of 2010 yields Democratic majorities from this point forward.

Most importantly, in 2012, if Republicans hold their white, Asian and “other” shares at their highly successful 2010 levels, Latinos and African Americans alone could still give Democrats a 50.3% share of the national popular vote if they simply vote just as they did in 2008.

Again, we are able to project these ranges based on some relatively simple assumptions regarding turnout, population growth, and vote choice.  Importantly, they are assumptions, but generally reasonable with respect to likely electoral swings.

State-level Projections

As we mentioned, of course, presidential elections are not won by popular vote and the real action—and the place where the Latino vote is more likely to shape outcomes—is in the individual states.  In this first round of estimations, we have focused on 16 states where Latinos could significantly influence who wins a statewide election.  Certainly other possibilities exist, and some may argue that states such as New York or Texas are not that competitive, but we caution the reader to not take too narrow of a view of competitiveness of the presidential candidates.  In each of the states here, there are many examples of close elections for statewide office, and we offer one example for each state, though many more abound.

Each of the states was selected because it was critical on at least one of four key dimensions: (1) the presidential election will be close, that is, the state is perceived to be a “battleground;” (2) the state has an interesting or important U.S. Senate, gubernatorial or other statewide election of interest, including important ballot initiatives; (3) the Latino electorate is large; or (4) the state has an emerging and potentially decisive Latino electorate in a part of the country where Latinos are not generally understood to be electorally important.

In the next several sections, we will walk through each state’s electoral circumstances and illustrate graphically, conditions under which the Latino vote can be decisive.  In forecasting where and when Latinos may be influential there are three key variables to take into consideration, all of which may fluctuate on election day.  These variables are: (1) what percentage of the electorate is Latino; (2) the Dem-Rep partisan vote among non-Latinos; (3) the Dem-Rep partisan vote among Latinos.  Ideally, analysts would be able to take into account, in real time, the best estimates for each of the above three variables and adjust their expectations and models accordingly. In coming weeks we will unveil a dynamic tool for users to change estimates and see how the outcomes also change.  Because the election is still 7 months away, we used fixed values for the above three variables for now, but fully expect these could change as election day approaches and voter sentiment changes.

The key question that journalists, election pundits and campaign consultants have been asking is what percent of the Latino vote Mitt Romney needs to win to be competitive.  In 2004 when George W. Bush was re-elected most data suggested he was able to increase his vote share among Latinos, perhaps to as high as 40%.  In 2008, Republican John McCain won an estimated 31% of the Latino vote nationally and states such as New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Florida all swung Democrat.  All four of these states with a notable Latino population voted Republican in 2004, and with a larger Latino electorate in 2008, and one that voted more heavily Democratic, all four states flipped from Bush to Obama in 2008.  While the 40% Republican vote figure that is often cited by followers of Latino politics is certainly credible, it is a national benchmark that fails to take into account the intricacies of each state.

Here, we present one effort to account for the differences in the Latino and non-Latino population in a variety of states to determine at what point, the Latino vote can single-handedly cause a state to flip from Republican to Democrat – or vice versa – from Democrat to Republican.  As we note above, in doing this we estimate the percentage of all votes that will be cast by Latinos, as well as take into the historical range of the two-party vote won by Republicans among non-Latinos, and then provide a sliding scale of the potential two-party vote among Latinos. Note that non-Latinos include Whites, Blacks, Asian Americans and any other non-Hispanic groups.  While the White vote is often more heavily Republican, when Blacks and Asians are included, the non-Latino vote, while still Republican leaning, is typically in the range of 51-55% Republican, depending on the state.

In each graph, we start by fixing the share of all voters who are Latino, based on historical Latino turnout patterns, growth projections, and 2010 census data on the number of eligible Latino voters in each state.  Given that Latinos will represent a fixed percentage of all voters – say 11% in a state like Colorado – we can predict whether the state will vote Republican or Democrat, if we have a good guess on how non-Latinos are leaning (which we will know from the aggregate of pre-election polls) and how Latinos are leaning (which we will know from Latino Decisions pre-election polls).  Keep in mind, we fully expect our models of Latino influence to vary over summer and fall 2012 as polling data on Latinos and non-Latinos comes into sharper focus, or shifts.  The model we offer here is adaptable and over the course of the 2012 election we will continually update our projections.

Consider the Colorado example in the graph below.  If Latinos account for 11% of all votes cast on election, and we set the non-Latino vote in Colorado at 52% Republican, represented by the solid black diagonal line, we can estimate the overall Republican vote won based on different possible outcomes among Latinos.  For example, if Latinos were to vote 0% Republican, and non-Latinos voted 52% Republican, the overall outcome would be 46.3% of the vote going to the Republican, which is the starting point on the far left hand side of the graph for the solid black line.  Each grey starred-line represents one additional point higher or lower in Republican vote share among non-Latinos.  So if non-Latinos voted 53% Republican we should follow the grey starred-line above the solid black, and if they voted 51% Republican we can follow the grey stars one row below the solid black line.  Returning again to the solid black line, we are most interested in where this crosses the 50% threshold represented by the purple line in the middle of the graph.  Of course, all outcomes above 50% indicate that the Republican candidate would win the state.  In this specific instance, the Colorado data tell us that if the Republican candidate wins 36% of the Latino vote, and 52% of the non-Latino vote, they would win the state.  If they can do 1 percent better among non-Latinos, and carry 53% of the non-Latino vote, the grey starred-line just above indicates they would need 29% of the Latino vote to surpass 50% statewide.  And on the other end, if the non-Latino vote is very, very close, and the Republican carries just 51% of non-Latinos, he or she would need to win almost 44% of the Latino vote to win the state of Colorado.

In addition the non-Latino and Latino GOP vote shares varying, the percent of all voters who are Latino on election day may be higher or lower than 11%.  If the Latino vote is 12% of all voters in Colorado then the Republican candidate would need to win even more Latino votes than the 36% estimate above, in fact they would likely need 37% of the Latino vote, given 52% of the non-Latino vote.  These additional simulations are easy to project with a few calculations, and in coming weeks, we will release an online tool for users to set these various parameters themselves.

Moving to other states, we can continue to estimate the percent of the Latino vote necessary for a Republican candidate to carry, to win the state.  For example, in Nevada where Latinos are slightly more of the electorate at 13%, a Republican would need to win 37% of the Latino vote, and 52% of the non-Latino vote in order to win statewide.  In a state such as New Mexico with a very large Latino population, estimated to be 36% of all voters, a Republican candidate needs to win 42% of the Latino vote to win, assuming they do well and win as high as 55% among non-Latinos, which historically had been the case.

If a state’s non-Latinos are evenly divided, or perhaps just barely lean Republican such as in California, the Latino vote is all the more important.  While California often looks favorable to Democratic candidates from a distance, upon closer inspection this Democratic edge has rested almost entirely in the hands of Latino voters in recent years.  If a Republican secures 51% of the combined non-Latino vote in California, they would need to win 47% of the Latino vote to win statewide.  If they can do better among non-Latinos, and win perhaps 53% there, they would still need 40% among Latinos to win statewide.  Because Latinos trended heavily Democrat in 2010 in California, what was actually a very close election among all non-Latinos resulted in safe wins for Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer.  In contrast when Arnold Schwarzenegger was re-elected in 2006 he won an estimated 39% of the Latino vote.

In some states like Florida, where the non-Latino vote seemingly rests squarely at a 50-50 distribution, the Latino vote is extremely influential at an estimated 16% of the electorate.  Unlike other states, the Latino vote in Florida is much more divided and has demonstrated swings in different elections.  While Bush won an estimated 56% of the Latino vote in Florida in 2004 on his way to victory, Obama carried 57% of Latinos in 2008 in winning the state, and in 2010 Marco Rubio won 62% among Latinos.  Looking to our model, when a Republican candidate wins 51% of the non-Latino vote in Florida, they would need to win 45% of the Latino vote to win statewide.  However, if they fall under 50% and win 49% of the non-Latino vote, they can still win Florida if they win 56% among Latinos.  Historically the Latino vote has been the deciding factor in Florida elections.  In 2004 when Mel Martinez was elected to the U.S. Senate he lost among non-Latinos, but his 60% vote share among Latinos gave him an overall win by 1 percent.

Elsewhere, where the Latino vote is smaller, it still has the potential to be influential if the election is close, as was the case in states like Indiana and North Carolina in 2008.  In 2012 states such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Washington, and North Carolina all promise to have very close elections for President, Governor, U.S. Senate.  If the non-Latino vote leans Republican by the slightest margin, say 50.5% then they would need to win at least 35% of the Latino vote when Latinos are 3% of the electorate.  If Latinos are 4% of the electorate the Republican needs to win 39% among Latinos to win statewide, and when Latinos are 5% of the electorate in a close state the Republican must win 41% among Latinos to win.  Examining this from the Democratic perspective, Latino turnout will be crucial in these states where Latino voters are just 3-5%.  If the President does well and wins 70% of the Latino vote, he can lose the non-Latino vote 49.3% to 50.7%, and still win statewide when Latinos are 5% of the electorate.  However if Latinos are just 3% of the electorate in the same scenario, even if the President wins 70% of the Latino vote he would lose the state.  Thus, even beyond the obvious states like New Mexico and Florida, the Latino vote can still prove very influential in less obvious states because the non-Latino vote is so evenly divided, and the Latino voting eligible population has been growing rapidly over the past decade.

To watch the webinar, click play:

---

[1] Greater detail regarding the development of this model is found in Bowler and Segura (2011).

GOP losing the Latina mom vote and much more

This article was originally published at NBC LATINO

Less is more for the Republican Party when it comes to women’s reproductive rights. Conservative Republican women may fully support the strategy of curtailing such healthcare access but the rest of the female electorate does not take kindly to such an approach.  Neither do Latinas.  Ninety-five percent of Latinas believe women should have easy access to contraception.  The GOP’s culture war is not only alienating Latinas, but in turn, they are also alienating the families that are politically guided by mama.

In Latino households it is not uncommon to have the grandparents, parents, kids, and even grandkids all under the same roof.  And amidst this potential familial chaos the Latina mom brings order to it all as the nucleus of the family.  So if mom can bring order to chaos on the family front, why not on the political front?   Well, focus group research has actually found this to be the case, that Latina moms are a key political organizational force within their households and communities.  In the current political context that means Latinas are not only opposing limitations to women’s healthcare access but also mobilizing the rest of the family against it.

At the national level the Republican Party has entrenched itself against the President’s healthcare reform mandate calling for the provision of free birth control.  At the state level, Republicans have been putting forward measures to chip away at a women’s access to healthcare principally through funding cuts to Planned Parenthood.  Routine gynecological exams, breast cancer screenings, and general health and wellness checks that were once provided by Planned Parenthood at low cost are now scarce.

At first sight it would seem that Latinos would be supportive of such measures because of the overwhelming rates of Catholicism, but that’s not true.  While Latinos are indeed very Catholic, their faith does not tend to influence their political views.   An impreMedia-Latino Decisions survey from late last year showed that for 57 percent of Latinos religion would have no impact at all on their vote in the 2012 election.

The separation between religion and politics explains why the conventional wisdom that Latinos are social conservatives is unfounded.  According to the Latino National Survey, the most recent comprehensive study of Latino political attitudes, 80 percent of Latinos either agree or strongly agree that women should have easy access to contraception.  Conservative Latinos, Catholic Latinos, Foreign born Latinos, any way you slice the Latino community, the vast majority supports greater access to contraception.

Latinas have the highest birth rates and their families are in the lowest income brackets.  These demographic and financial realities make the provision of low cost family planning critical to Latinos.  For Latinos affordable women’s healthcare has short and long-term benefits.  In the short-term, scarce resources that would be used for family planning can be used for more immediate needs such as obtaining nutritious food and medicines for the family.  And in the long-term, family planning will allow Latino parents to make greater and more substantial investments in the educational future of their children.

For Latinas part of providing a future for their children and their family is seeing a political landscape that allows for this wellbeing.  In the lead up to the 2012 presidential election the GOP continues to provide the Latino community reasons to mobilize against its policies.  In the realm of women’s health, the Republican Party has once again come down on the wrong side of Latino policy preferences.  More specifically, the strong preference of Latinas for easy access to contraception has been ignored.  The culture war will only provide an effective mobilizing cause for the Latina herself but also for the family troops she leads.

Dr. Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto is the Communications Director for Latino Decisions and Fellow at the Center for Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, at Austin. Connect with her at:drvmds@latinodecisions.com

Latino conservatives? GOP hopes misplaced

This article was originally published at USA Today

One of the Newt Gingrich campaign’s top 10 reasons for why Latinos should support him for president is that “he shares our conservative values.” Republican reasoning often goes like this: While the majority of Latinos do not agree with the GOP on fiscal or immigration matters, at least their faith and social conservatism will make them Republican-friendly.

The GOP, however, shouldn’t hold its breath. The idea that Latinos are social conservatives akin to white evangelicals is simply off-base. A recent poll by impreMedia and Latino Decisions of 500 registered Latino voters late last year found that religious beliefs would not have an impact on the vote of 53% of Latinos, while 17% indicate that it will have a little impact.

Latinos are not significantly more conservative than non-Latinos. In fact, when it comes to gay marriage, a November Univision-Latino Decisions poll found Latinos are more progressive that non-Latinos. Though 43% of Latino voters supported gay marriage, only 35% of general voters did.

The trend is similar on issues like abortion. Most Latinos identify as Catholic, yet their faith does not translate into an absolute rejection of abortion rights. The same Univision-Latino Decisions poll found 38% of Latinos are pro-choice, and Latinas are only slightly less likely than non-Hispanic women to support abortion.

In the upcoming presidential election, Latinos’ top concern is jobs and the economic recovery — just like other Americans. This makes sense, especially when the unemployment rate among Latinos in January was 10.5% compared with 8.3% for the general population. Immigration is Issue No. 2 among Latinos, yet other than Gingrich, no Republican presidential candidate supports immigration reform that provides a large-scale pathway to citizenship.

In the short term, the GOP can attract certain segments of the Latino electorate, including the more conservative Cuban-American population as well as Latinos whose families have been inAmericafor more than a generation or two.

Looking beyond this election, the Republican Party will have success with the growing Latino population with a broad and inclusive agenda, not one that puts all hope in a social conservatism that doesn’t even appeal to many Latino voters. Only then might that great migration to the GOP actually occur.

Dr. Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto is the Communications Director for Latino Decisions and Fellow at the Center for Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, at Austin. Connect with her at: drvmds@latinodecisions.com

Conference Call to Focus on Florida as First Major Latino State

Latino Community Tele-Forum:  “The Latino Primary 2012”

Conference Call to Focus on Florida as First Major Latino State

MIAMI – The National Institute for Latino Policy will convene a national teleconference of Latino leaders from across the country next Monday, January 23, to host a Community Tele-Forum entitled “The Latino Primary 2012”   In the 2008 election, the wave of the massive Latino vote helped propel Barack Obama to victory.  With polls showing growing disappointment with President Obama among Latino voters, the upcoming primary in Florida, the first primary state with a major Latino population, raises the question, “Will Latinos vote Republican in 2012?

Held just one week before the Florida primary, The Latino Primary 2012 will allow invited experts and leaders to shed light on what to expect with first major voting contest involving the Latino vote.  “Florida represents the first contest of the Latino primary season, a stretch of state primaries involving significant Latino voting populations” said Angelo Falcón, President and Founder of the National Institute for Latino Policy, the event’s sponsor.

The Latino Primary 2012 will help provide a range of analysis and discussion from scholars, political leaders, and community advocates to help navigate and understand what direction the wave of the Latino vote will take in 2012.

To view the full list of contests in the Latino Primary Season, see below.

WHAT

“The Latino Primary 2012”: Latino Community Tele-Forum analyzing the Latino Vote in 2012 Election on the eve of the Florida primary

WHO

Gary Segura, Professor of Political Science, Stanford University; Co Founder and Principal, Latino Decisions.  Professor Segura will preview some new data on Latino voters in Florida and across the country.

Maria del Rosario Rodriguez, Co-Founder, Florida Immigrant Coalition

Arturo Carmona, Executive Director, Presente.org

Isabel Garcia, Executive Director, Derechos Humanos, Tucson, Arizona

Angelo Falcón, President and Founder, National Institute for Latino Policy

Other guests to be announced

WHEN

Monday, January 23, 2012

1pm Eastern  |  10 am Pacific

WHERE

Conference Call Dial In Number: 800-862-9098

Conference ID: LATINO

Program Title: Latino Primary 2012

2012 Primaries – Latino Primary Season

Jan. 31: Florida primary

Feb. 4: Nevada caucuses

Feb. 7: Colorado caucuses

Feb. 28: Arizona primary

March 3: Washington State caucuses

March 6: Super Tuesday — Georgia primary

March 18: Puerto Rico primary

March 20: Illinois primary

April 3: Texas primary

April 24: Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island primaries

May 8: North Carolina primary

May 15: Oregon primary

June 5: California, New Jersey, New Mexico primaries

June 26: Utah primary

Latino Voters Go Beyond Immigration

This article originally appeared in the January 30, 2012 issue of The Nation magazine

José Díaz-Balart, chief political analyst for Telemundo, had one important task during the September 7, 2011, Republican debate—to ask the candidates about immigration. Díaz-Balart asked his question, got his answer and was dismissed from the stage. The stereotype was fulfilled; a Latino asked one question and the one question was about immigration. With that box checked, the moderators and candidates were able to return to “non-Latino” issues.

The problem is, the issues that keep Latinos up at night—like double-digit unemployment rates, living at the poverty end of the wealth gap and having the highest high school dropout rates in the country—go well beyond immigration. Herein lies the challenge for President Obama. He must recast his connection with Latino voters beyond a narrow focus on immigration and engage Latinos as the multi-issue electorate they are.

Searching for a National Latino Leader

A recent blog to the Latino Decisions page noted that Susana Martinez and Marco Rubio, both mentioned as possible Vice Presidential candidates, were largely unknown by Latino voters. While somewhat surprising, this seems to be in line with other surveys focused on Latino’s knowledge of Latino political leaders. For example, a 2010 poll by the Pew Hispanic Center asked 1,375 Latino adults to name the person they consider “the most important Latino leader in the country today”. A robust 64% of respondents said they “did not know”, and another ten percent of the sample responded that there “is none”. The most frequently cited Leader, at only 7%, was Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotamayor.

This apparent lack of Latino political leadership comes after a period of unprecedented growth in political representation for Latinos. According to the National Association of Latino Elected Officials most recent directory of elected officials, the number of Latino elected officials increased by 53% from 3,734 in 1996 to 5,850 in 2011.  This rise in Latino political representation appears to be apparent at all levels of public office. Specifically, the number of Latinos represented in Congress has more than doubled from 12 legislators in the 101^st Congress (1989-1990) to a high of 28 Latino members of Congress in the 109^th (2005-2006). This rise in Latinos in Congress is apparent in figure one below. Here you can see a steady climb in the number of Latinos within Congress over time, especially in the House, with a high of 28 in the 109^th Congress. While the number of Latinos in Congress has dropped slightly over the past two election cycles, the 26 members serving in the 112^th Congress is much greater than the 19 who served a decade ago.

 

This rise in Latino representation is even more apparent at the state level. Since the 1970’s the percentage of Latinos in state legislatures across the U.S. has increased steadily. For example, from 1996 to 2010 there has been a 57% increase in the percentage of Latinos elected to state legislatures, with 245 Latinos represented in state legislatures across the nation. And as noted above, two Latinos are currently serving as Governors of their state: New Mexico’s Susana Martinez and Nevada’s Brian Sandoval. Finally, the election of Antonio Villaraigosa as mayor of Los Angeles symbolizes similar representation trends at this level. Major cities such as Denver, San Antonio, and Miami have elected Latino mayors, as well as several smaller cities such as Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Austin and El Paso. At least one of these mayors, San Antonio’s Julian Castro, has received major national attention, referenced by the New York Times as the “Post-Hispanic Hispanic Politician”.

The rise in Latino representation in elected offices across all levels of government has definitely provided a strong and growing pool of potential national leaders. However, although there has clearly been a rise in Latino representation, the question remains as to whether Latinos, themselves, views these elected officials as leaders of their community. The results of the Pew survey appear to suggest that the diversity among Latinos in regard to partisanship, region, and nativity etc. may hinder their ability to rally around a national Latino leader. Although the Pew poll was conducted just prior to the election of Rubio and Martinez, the November, 2011 Latino Decisions poll provides the ability to explore this possibility.

The November poll reveals sizable differences in favorability for Marco Rubio based on partisanship, with 56% of Latino Republicans indicating that they have either “very” or “somewhat” favorable impressions of the Senator, compared to only 19% among Latino Democrats. There was a more modest 10% point gap based on nativity, with foreign-born Latinos having higher favorability for Rubio. U.S.-born and English dominant Latinos were less knowledgeable of both candidates. Native-born Latinos were 13% more likely to have “never heard of” New Mexico’s Martinez, and 15% more likely to have “never heard of” Florida’s Rubio. This is consistent with the Pew Report, which also found familiarity with Latino leaders to be greater among the foreign-born. Finally, and not surprisingly, both familiarity and favorability for Rubio and Martinez is greater in their respective regions of the country. For example, 23% of Latinos in the Southwest had favorable impressions of Martinez in the November poll, compared to only 8% in New York. Similarly, 44% of Latinos in Florida are favorable towards their home-Senator Rubio, compared to 25% in the Southwest and 19% in New York.

While it is clear that variation within the Latino population will continue to provide challenges to contenders for the title of “national Latino leader”, there are many reasons for optimism. The rise in Latino descriptive representation will provide a natural pool of candidates for higher office, including a potential Vice President in the near future. Further, as the influence of the Latino electorate continues to grow, both parties will be motivated to recruit and develop Latino leaders in an effort to court Latino voters. Finally, the rapid and unexpected rise of President Obama to national prominence provides an example of just how quickly a “national leader” can rise to prominence. In closing, let us not forget that at one point, Hillary Clinton had higher favorability and greater familiarity ratings among African Americans than Barack Obama.

Gabriel R. Sanchez is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of New Mexico and Research Director for Latino Decisions.

Latina Moms in the 2012 Election

by Victoria DeFrancesco Soto

Soccer moms were the go to gals in the 1996 Presidential election.  Eight years later George W. Bush again looked to the ladies, zeroing in on security moms.  In the last presidential election  a hockey mom herself was put at the top of the ticket.  And leading up to the 2012 election Wal-Mart moms are the political date of choice.

The different “moms” of the last couple of elections have changed names, but they remain generally similar in terms of demographic characteristics – white, middle class, and suburban.  These moms vote and they are moved by tangible day-to-day concerns related to the well-being of their family.  Campaigns are smart to target these women, but would be unwise to do so to the exclusion of the growing population of mamás—Latina moms.

Latinas, like white, black, and Asian women have out-voted their male counterparts for 30 years. In the 2008 election 70.4 million women voted, close to 10 million more women than men.  In that same election 34.3% of eligible Latinas voted while only 29.1% of Latino men did.  This pattern is likely to continue into the 2012 election.  At the same time that this differential will persist, the raw number of Latinas (and Latinos) voting will climb as a result of the rapid population growth within the Latino community that has increased by two million new eligible Latino voters.

Mamás will be a particularly important electorate for President Obama.  While women across the board approve of the President at higher rates than men, the President’s approval is strongest among Latinas.   In the November 2011 Univision-Latino Decisions poll 31% of registered Latinas strongly approved of the President compared to 27% of registered non-Latinas.  This differential widened when the President was paired up against Mitt Romney.  In this hypothetical match-up 47% of non-Latinas stated they were most likely vote for President Obama and among Latinas that figure shot up to 69%.

While as a group Latinos continue to support President Obama at higher rates than whites, Latinas approve of the President more than their male counterparts.  In December 2011 an impreMedia-Latino Decisions poll asked registered Latinos how certain they were in their vote for President Obama or a Republican challenger.  Fifty-four percent of the respondents stated that they were certain to vote for the President.  However, the level of support was not equal among Latino men and women, with 56% of Latinas stating their certainty of support and 51% of Latino men doing the same.  In a follow up question that pitted the President against Mitt Romney, Latinas again indicated that they were more likely to vote for President Obama.

Moms inside and outside of the political arena are a force to be reckoned with, Latina moms not being the exception.  As the Latino population continues to grow the force of mamás will only increase.  If they are courted appropriately Latina moms will prove to be a lifeline to the President’s re-election bid.     However, Latinas, like Latinos in general are an electorate that will cross party lines if a candidate resonates with them.  Moving beyond the 2012 election, Republicans and Democrats alike will need to seek to make mamá happy.

Dr. Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto is the Communications Director for Latino Decisions and a Visiting Scholar in the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin. Connect with her at: drvmds@latinodecisions.com

Latinos Rising: Consequences of the 2011 Nevada Redistricting

David F. Damore, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

What a difference a decade makes.  In 2001, despite constituting 20% of Nevada’s population, Latinos received little to no consideration in the state’s redistricting process.[i]  In 2011, representation of the state’s Latino community – now over 26% of Nevada’s population – was the main point of contention that caused Nevada’s reapportionment and redistricting to be completed in state court.[ii]  Throughout redistricting negotiations, Republicans cited the lack of a majority-minority Latino U.S. House district (Nevada was awarded its fourth House seat after the 2010 census) as grounds to oppose maps proposed by the majority Democrats.  Ultimately, because Republican Governor Brian Sandoval’s vetoed two sets of maps passed on party line votes and refused to call a special session to complete Nevada’s redistricting, Carson City District Judge Todd Russell took control of the process and appointed three special masters to complete Nevada’s 2011 redistricting.

Cynics accused the Republicans of using Latino representation as a fig-leaf for broader fears about the political implications of Nevada’s changing demographics.  Between 2000 and 2010, Nevada was the nation’s fastest growing state and is now one of the most urbanized and diverse states in the country – two important drivers of the Democratic vote in the Mountain West.  Specifically, nearly three out of four Nevadan’s reside in Clark County (Las Vegas) and the state’s minority population increased by10% with better than 45% of all Nevadans being classified as non-white by the 2010 U.S. Census.  Aided by a heavy investment in resources and political talent by Reid Inc. (the moniker of the U.S. Senate Majority Leader’s extensive political organization), Nevada Democrats took advantage of these demographic trends to flip the state from Republican leaning to Democratic leaning by decade’s end.  Figure 1, which summaries Democratic electoral strength using Ceaser and Saldin’s Major Party Index and voter registration figures between 2000 and 2010, captures the Democratic rise in Nevada during the prior decade.[iii]

Thus, regardless of the final contours of the maps, changes to the state’s political demography meant that the 2011 redistricting would favor the Democrats.  Instead of accepting this reality, Nevada Republicans clung to a tortured interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in hopes of extracting a more favorable outcome.  Specifically, by claiming that Nevada was required to draw one of its House seats as majority Latino, Republicans were at odds with the Shaw v. Reno (509 U.S. 630 ) holding, which allows race to be considered but not the primary factor (as the Republican proposed House map did) in drawing district boundaries.  Moreover, as Democrats and many allied Latinos noted, packing Latinos into a single U.S. House district would marginalize Latino influence in Nevada’s other three U.S. House districts and because white voters in Nevada do not vote as a block to deny Latinos representation of their preferred candidates as evidenced by the fact that Latino candidates won a number of state legislative seats, the attorney generalship, and the governorship in 2010 without such accommodations, race-based redistricting in Nevada is unnecessary.

By forcing redistricting into the courts, Nevada Republicans miscalculated and ended up with a less favorable outcome than if they had accepted either of the Democratic plans passed during the legislative session.  To be sure, regardless of who drew the maps, the manner in which Nevada’s population is distributed ensured that the outcome for Nevada’s four U.S. House districts would be two safe Democratic seats, one Republican leaning district, and one swing district.  However, in realizing this outcome, the special masters opted not to create a majority Latino House district.  Still, as indicated by the data presented in Table 1, which summarizes the demographic and partisan composition of Nevada’s four U.S. House districts, Latinos constitute 43% of Nevada’s 1^st House District and Latinos of voting age are nearly 37% of the district’s population.  Moreover, except for the Republican leaning district (Nevada’s 2^nd), the Latino population is larger than the Latino voting age population in the other three U.S. House districts suggesting that the demographic transformation of Nevada’s electorate will continue in the coming decade.  Given the extensive mobilization of Nevada’s Latino community by the Democrats since 2004, these trends are particularly troubling for Nevada Republicans who only in the last month hired a Latino outreach coordinator.

Equally problematic for Nevada Republicans are the special masters’ state legislative maps.  Because of growth patterns during the prior decade, southern Nevada was assured of gaining a state senate seat and two assembly seats (48 of 63 seats in the Nevada Legislature are now located in southern Nevada).  Thus, the main issue was which seats would be moved from northern Nevada to the Democratic stronghold of Clark County.  In both of their plans the Democrats proposed moving seats located in and around Washoe County (Reno) to southern Nevada and preserving two stand alone rural state senate districts.  Instead, the special masters created one stand alone rural senate district and moved the other rural state senate seat to southern Nevada.  Moreover, the senate seat in Washoe County that the Democrats had originally proposed to move south was drawn with a Republican registration advantage of less than 1%.

More generally, as the data in Table 2 suggest, for Nevada Republicans to gain the majority in either chamber of the Nevada Legislature in the coming decade will require that Republican candidates consistently win an overwhelming share of the nonpartisan vote (16% of the electorate).  In the state senate, 12 seats have a Democratic voter registration advantage in excess of 5% as compared to only five such seats for the GOP.  And in only one of the four competitive senate district do Republicans have a registration advantage greater than 1%.  The GOP’s prospects are even less favorable in the Assembly where the Democrats now have 25 seats with registration advantages in excess of 5%.  In contrast, there are only eight seats that favor the Republicans and nine seats where neither party enjoys a registration advantage greater than 5%   Lastly, Latinos should be able to continue to increase their ranks in the Nevada Legislature in the coming decade from their present eight given that over a third of all state legislative districts have Latino populations in excess of 30%.

---

---

End Notes

[i] Despite constituting 20% of the population in 2000, after the 2002 midterm election, Hispanics held just 5 % of seats in the state legislature.  For an extended discussion of Nevada’s 2011 redistricting, see David F. Damore, “The 2011 Nevada Redistricting and Perpetuation of the Status Quo,” American Review of Politics (Summer 2006): 149–68

[ii] Population and demographic data cited here come from the U.S. Census Bureau, “State and County Quick Facts,” August 2011 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html) and U.S. Census, “American Fact Finder,” August 2011 (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml).

[iii] The Major Party Index combines a party’s electoral support in the most recent presidential, gubernatorial, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House contests and the share of the seats that the party controls in both chambers of the state legislature; see, James W. Ceaser and Robert P. Saldin, “A New Measure of Party Strength,” Political Research Quarterly (June 2005): 245–56.

David F. Damore is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and an expert in Nevada politics.

Can the Internet be a Door to Increased Latin@ and African American Participation?

By Jessica Lavariega Monforti & Jose Marichal

Could the key to increasing civic engagement among Latinos and African Americans be computer classes?   A growing body of research is linking Internet use, particularly social network use, and increased social capital and civic engagement.  A new report from the MaCarthur foundation finds that Facebook use is correlated with increased interest in and participation in politics. Scholars like Northwestern Sociologist Esther Hargatti speak eloquently about the information gap between rich and poor online.  This gap is less about access to technology and more about developing the skills to harness the technology for political and social gain.  The ability to do information searches, send text messages, tweet, share content and other on-line skills is a central element in becoming what Evegny Morozov calls a “digital renegade” rather than a “digital captive.”

The key to using the Web in democracy-enhancing ways is acquiring digital skills.  While this concept has been measured in lots of ways, the presence of digital skills can be measured by the level of autonomy the user has, the number of access points a user has to get online, the amount of experience a user has with different types of online tools, etc.

While the transformation of political life through the Web has not proceeded apace, events like Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 U.S. presidential election highlight the power of the Internet and particularly social networking sites as a mobilizing and fund-raising tool.

Latinos might be particularly disposed to use the Web in ways that cultivate the development of digital skills.  Because Latinos are younger than the population as a whole, they are more likely to be digital natives that can use the Web to accomplish democracy-enhancing tasks like texting, social networking and uploading content. In addition, a 2008 study by Forrester Research found that forty percent of Latinos used the Web for content creation and sharing (blog, upload video and photos, create web-pages, etc.).  By comparison, only 12 percent on non-Latinos used the Internet for these purposes. Finally, as reflected in the table below, a study conducted last year by the Pew Center found that Latinos were more than three times as likely as whites to use Twitter (19% for Latinos to 5% for whites).

Republican candidates do not resonate with Latinos

By Pilar Marrero – Pilar.marrero@laopinion.com  | 2011-10-17

Results From Political Content of October Poll Posted Here

LOS ANGELES, CA. – Although Latino voters have expressed some disappointment with President Obama in the last few months, none of the Republican presidential candidates has been able to captivate or attract the attention of Latinos until now. In other words, for the time being, among the eight candidates, there is no one equivalent to George W. Bush who would attract a significant percentage of the Latino vote.

The new impreMedia/Latino Decisions (IM-LD) poll, cosponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, revealed these results. It also showed these voters are very unfamiliar with the Republican candidates and do not have a favorable image of those candidates they know about.

Despite Conservative Bias, Republican Poll Still Shows Disastrous Disadvantage for Republicans Among Latinos

On Friday, the GOP campaign consulting firm Ayres, McHenry, and Associates released a new poll sponsored by the Resurgent Republic—a GOP research and public affairs organization—and the Hispanic Leadership Network, an outreach effort of the right-of-center American Action Network.  Both groups work for the election of additional Republicans to Congress and the defeat of President Obama.

The poll, widely reported in the National Journal and other papers, purports to show significant weakness of President Obama among Latinos in important swing states of Colorado, Florida, and New Mexico.

The central finding, that the President is currently underperforming his 2008 support among Latinos in those states, is consistent with our recent work nationwide.  Nevertheless, in our view, the poll most clearly illustrates two things: 1) that amateurs with no familiarity with the Latino electorate frequently make large and methodologically important mistakes in how they poll; and 2) that the Republican brand is so severely compromised among Latinos—even in Florida—that it may be their undoing in the 2012 election.

Redistricting and the Latino Boom in Nebraska

By Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, University of Nebraska Omaha

At the beginning of the year there was much speculation as to how the rapid growth of the U.S. Latino population in the last decade would influence the redistricting process across the country.  Growth rates in new destination states such as Nebraska (77%), Nevada (82%), and North Carolina (111%) have emerged as battlegrounds over the extent to which Latinos will impact this decennial process. In this entry, we look at the effort to redraw both the state legislative and congressional districts around the center of Nebraska’s Latino population, the southeastern portion of the Omaha metropolitan area. More specifically, we explore the controversial attempt by Republican members of the Nebraska Legislature’s Redistricting Committee to create a Latino “super-majority” district in South Omaha, while simultaneously decreasing Latino influence in the east Sarpy County communities of Bellevue and Papillion-La Vista by removing them from Nebraska’s 2^nd Congressional District.

Perceptions of party outreach to Latinos key to 2012 vote

Yesterday, Pilar Marrero of impreMedia reported that Latino voters were “dissatisfied with political parties” and despite majority approval ratings, Latino support for Obama is tepid heading into 2012. Despite a 73% approval rating, only 41% of Latino registered voters say they are certain to vote for Obama in 2012. This 32 point gap could spell trouble down the road.

Two months ago the February 2011 Latino Decisions tracking poll found 52% of Latino registered voters said the Democratic Party was doing a good job of reaching out to the Hispanic community. This month, that number has slipped slightly to just 47% who rate the Democrats positively on outreach. Even as President Obama has reached out in recent weeks participating in an education town hall meeting with Jorge Ramos of Univision, the perception among a majority of Latinos is that the Democratic Party has not done a good job of outreach. Why is this the case? Despite the focus on education at the Univision event, almost half the questions put to Obama by students, parents, and Ramos concerned immigration, including questions about why the DREAM Act did not get enough support to pass, and why non-criminal immigrants with U.S. citizen children were being deported? Still, the 47% who rate the Democrats favorably is more than double the 21% who rate the Republican Party as doing a good job of reaching out. As Marrero notes, neither party is doing a great job in making Latinos feel welcomed.

Indeed, this is a common theme of research by Prof. Sylvia Manzano, who noted in 2010 that Latinos feel less welcomed by both parties. Manzano was the first to note

Where Latino Votes Will Matter in 2012

With the recent release of the national Census data pundits have been quick to point out the obvious: the Latino population is growing! As if data points from the annual Current Population Survey, and now American Community Survey did not already tell us this on a yearly basis, the official 2010 decennial census now confirms that more than 50 million Latinos are part of America and politicians should take note. However, the lingering question on journalists minds is whether or not this population growth will transfer into immediate political power? With 33 U.S. Senate contests and a Presidential election across 50 states in 2012, the Latino voter is positioned to have a bigger impact than ever on the political landscape of America. However, even as the citizen eligible population is increasing rapidly, Latinos continue to face a registration gap vis-a-vis Whites and African Americans. Despite massive voter registration drives in 2008 and 2010, only about 60% of Latino citizen adults are registered to vote, compared to 70% of Blacks, and 74% of Whites. Thus, while the Latino population is growing dramatically (43% growth since 2000, compared to 1% growth in the White population), it’s influence in 2012 could be even greater than expected if voter registration drives take shape.

Using data from the 1996 – 2008 Current Population Survey, Voting and Registration supplement, and 2010 Census data where available, we have projected the Latino eligible voter population, by state for November 2012. Given the trends in growth rates over the previous decade, and new data from 2010, we project linear estimates for each state in 2012.

Latino influence states even more important in 2012 electoral college map

In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama won the important Latino battleground states of Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Florida on his way to winning 365 total electoral college votes. The 46 electors in those four key states back in 2008 were part of the coalition, but in the ended they served more to run up the score, than provide the margin of victory. In 2012, due to declining approval of Obama among Whites, and a change in the number of electoral college votes during reapportionment, Latino voters, and Latino influence states are likely to play a very crucial role in determining which candidate gets to 270 electors. The four Latino battleground states have gained 3 seats in the U.S. House, resulting in 3 additional electoral college votes – 1 in Nevada and 2 in Florida. While Obama carried all four of these Latino states in 2008, the other states he won saw a loss of 9 electoral college votes in reapportionment, for a net loss of 6.

Senators who opposed DREAM Act may face Latino roadblocks in 2012

Yesterday the U.S. Senate failed to invoke cloture on the DREAM Act (HR 5281), ending the chance for any legislative accomplishments on the issue of immigration. While much of the last two years was spent addressing the issues of health care reform, and the economy, to Latino voters a third issue loomed as being equally important for the President and Congress to address – immigration reform. In our final tracking poll released November 1, 2010 Latino voters told us that immigration was the second most important issue, just behind the economy. In our 2010 election eve poll 48% of Latino voters said jobs/economy was the top issue of concern, but immigration loomed as a major issue with 37% calling it the top issue to be addressed. And when asked specifically about the DREAM Act, the same poll found 75% of Latino voters said it was very or extremely important for the DREAM Act to be passed by Congress, with another 13% saying somewhat important — that’s 88% all told who thought it was important for Congress to pass DREAM.

Latino Decisions tracking poll post-election panel discredits National Exit Poll

Latino Decisions interview 1,870 Latino registered voters nationwide across 13 weeks, beginning August 9 and ending on October 28. In the weeks after the election, we attempted to re-contact those registered voters from November 3 – 19, 2010 to ask whether, why, and for whom they voted. Of the original 1,870, we were able to successfully re-contact 1,078. Of those we successfully re-contacted, 79.2% report having actually voted in the November election, with 71% stating they voted Democrat and 29% Republican. (Our sample of those reporting to vote is 854, +/- 3.3%)

The re-contact panel design of these data allow us to explore several important aspects of the tracking poll and the behavior of the Latino electorate. Specifically, these data allow us to:

• Estimate the self-reported turnout of voters after the election compared with their reported intentions with respect to voting at the time of the original interview;
• Examine the manner of voting most often preferred, between early/absentee and polling place voting;
• Gauge the stability of preferences by comparing intended two-party vote from the pre-election poll, with their post-election vote report, and
• Determine how those reportedly undecided in the pre-election interview ultimately voted – Democrat, Republican or Abstain.

Final Latino Decisions Tracking Poll Shows Dems Winning Latino Vote

After 11 weeks of interviewing, our fall tracking poll comes to an end with this, the 10th Wave Report. Note, however, that the Latino Decisions Track will continue in 2011, though on a bi-monthly basis.

On this, the eve of the 2010 Midterm Elections, we find a Latino vote more energized, more enthused, and significantly more Democratic than at the start of the general election campaign. Overall, with undecided voters pushed to make a decision, we report 70% vote intention for Democrats, and 30% for Republicans, on the generic ballot midterm question. We also find a Latino electorate still ambivalent about the Obama administration and still not convinced on its commitment to the cause of comprehensive immigration reform, which was promised, but for a variety of reasons failed to come up in the administration’s first two years.

The percentage of Latinos reporting a certainty of voting has climbed to 76.9%, its highest level in the entire track, more than five points higher than where we were eight weeks back and more than 10 points higher than the low point in Wave 5.

The Immigrant Vote in California

Latino and Asian Americans are an important part of the American electorate, and this is perhaps most so in California, where the two groups account for nearly one third of the state’s registered voter population. In 2008, for instance, data from the Current Population Survey indicate that Latinos accounted for 22 percent of the registered voter population and Asian Americans accounted for nearly 11 percent of registered voters in 2008. No other state has a higher percentage of both Latino and Asians voters.

Both of these populations have also grown rapidly in terms of their electoral clout in statewide elections. Latinos went from being about 13 percent of registered voters in 1996 to 22 percent in 2008, according to the Current Population Survey, and the comparable increase for Asian Americans was from 5 percent to 11 percent. In contrast, the percent of all registered voters in California who are White has dropped from 72 percent in 1996 to 59 percent in 2008. With more and more immigrants choosing to naturalize, and with the children of immigrants getting older, the electoral importance of these two groups is projected to grow even larger. While California is already a majority-minority population state, it is clearly on a path to become a majority-minority electorate.