Hispanic Voting Related Literature Essay

The coming of the 2008 US Presidential Elections has made studies on voting behavior a fad in the scholastic community. Everybody wants to know, especially the candidates, how America or segments of its population will vote or the chances that a candidate will win based on some observations on voting patterns. Unfortunately, and not many people know this, studying voting behavior is not as simple as looking at the voting statistics. As one scholar commented, â€Å"voting is among the acts hardest to explain† (Uhlaner, 1989, p. 390). For one, Samuel Eldersveld (1951), defined voting behavior to connote â€Å"more than the examination of voting records†, but also includes â€Å"analyses on individual psychological processes and their relation to the vote-decision, of group structures and functions and their relation to political action, as well as institutional patterns and their impact on elections† (Eldersveld, 1951, p. 71). Thus, studies on voting behavior have also become multi-disciplinary, and were never confined in the field of political science. Still, studying voting behavior holds so much promise as far as theory construction is concerned, because it is viewed to be an area where theory can be systematically and quantitatively measured and tested. Also, this area offers more valid and reliable statements of causal determinants and a wealth of hypotheses, as voting behavior can be studied with respect to several possible variables. (Eldersveld, 1951, pp. 72-73). In her emphasis on the role of groups, Carole Uhlaner hypothesizes that voters act as part of groups with shared interests† (p. 390). Based on a utilitarian model of consumption benefit, she suggests that a group votes for a certain candidate because it would benefit from the policy positions of that candidate. From here, it is not difficult to presume that ethnic groups vote for candidates coming from their own group because they are expected to represent their interests. Though there has been a debate, in the case of Hispanic Elected Officials (HEOs), on whether Hispanic members of the US House of Representatives substantially represent the interests of their Hispanic constituents (Hero and Tolbert, 1995; and Kerr and Miller, 1997), it is useful to start with the assumption that groups, particularly ethnic groups, play an important role in determining voting behavior as identities and affiliations affect voters’ interpretations of the political world, preferences, and actions. (Uhlaner, 1989) Thus, a very interesting, yet under-studied (Antunes and Gaitz, 1975; Hero, 1990; Arvizu and Garcia, 1996), subject of inquiry on voting behavior would be the Hispanics in the United States. Scholars and politicians alike are interested in finding out how Latinos vote because despite the increasing significance of the group, being the fastest growing minority group in the US (Tanneeru, 2007), there seems to be the absence of consistent or predictable patterns on Hispanic voting across areas and through time. It may stem from the fact that the Hispanic community is diverse and voting interests are not homogenous. A Cuban-American may vote for a Republican because of the party’s long-standing policies toward Cuba, while a Hispanic in a border state may be affected by the stringent immigration policies. The culture of a state can also affect a Hispanic voter’s behavior: Texas voters may be more conservative in contrast to more liberal Hispanic voters in California. A study on the impact of religion also revealed that first and third generations placed more importance on religion than the second generation Hispanics in the US (Tanneeru, 2007). Socio-economic factors — such as social class, occupation, poverty indicators, among others — are also seen as significant determinants of voter turnout (Arvizu and Garcia, 1996; Antunes and Gaitz, 1975). In her explanation of the Hispanic low voter turnout, Cassel even suggested that Hispanics vote less than Anglos during presidential elections because they â€Å"tend to be younger, less educated, poorer or less frequently contacted by a political party or candidate† (Cassel, 2002, p. 397-398). In a comparison between the election of Federico Pena as Mayor of Denver, Colorado in 1983 and the bid of Victor Morales from Texas for US Senate in 1996 points to more variables that shaped the two campaigns. These include the size of the constituency, size and demographics of the Hispanic population, ability of the candidates to build coalitions of ethnic groups and sectors, personal qualifications or experience of the candidate, membership in civic organizations, political party support and campaign funds. This also tells us that the mere presence of a large Hispanic population in an electoral district could not ascertain victory for a Hispanic candidate. In a study by Rodney Hero comparing Hispanic political behavior in two Colorado cities – Denver and Pueblo – with other California cities, it appears that the governmental structure plays a significant role in determining different levels of mobilization of Hispanics in the cities. Colorado cities, with their unreformed structure, particularly Denver which has a strong-mayor system, have obtained greater political influence than what can be observed among California cities. This study supports the observation in 1983 in Denver, Colorado wherein Pena was elected into office with the highest Hispanic voter turnout ever recorded in the city. It also proves that it is not always the case that Hispanics are politically â€Å"acquiescent† and politically inactive and/or ineffective. (Hero, 1990) The observed political apathy of Hispanics had been explained by several studies in different ways. A study on voting behavior in Texas from 1960-1970 asserts that discriminatory devices such as the poll tax, the requirement of annual registration, short registration periods, and length of time between the end of registration and general election had restricted qualified electorate in favor of white persons and those with greater education and income (Shinn, 1971). Such means of discrimination, including literacy tests and printing of ballots in English, had also been used by the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to include large jurisdictions where large Mexican American populations live. Arguing that Hispanics never really met the level of discrimination suffered by the blacks, for whom the Voting Rights Act was originally intended, Linda Chavez points out that Hispanic votes had been aggressively courted by presidential candidates since 1960s and that hundreds of Mexican Americans had held office since the 1970s. She contends that in places where Hispanics make up a large segment of the constituency, several other factors, not the absence of safe seat for Hispanic representative, explain why no Hispanics hold office (Chavez, 1992). Complementing the initial observation of Chavez, George Antunes and Charels Gaitz found out in 1975 that in their interpretation of ethnic differences in the levels of participation among blacks, Mexican-Americans and whites, ethnic identification process among minority groups only partially account for the higher level of political participation of the discriminated groups. However, they stressed that compared to blacks, Mexican-Americans have lower participation rates for nine of eleven indicators of political participation, including voting. This is basically because of the cultural norms of participation inculcated in black communities owing to their history of discrimination wherein they suffered more than the Mexican-Americans (Antunes and Gaitz, 1975). Political history is also one of the aspects that Carol Cassel examined in her explanation of low Hispanic political participation as evident in their low voter turnout, compared to the African-Americans. Seeing that Hispanics vote at the same rate with other ethnic groups during presidential elections, Cassel suggests that low turnout in low visibility races can also be attributed to the Latinos’ lack of political networks or just because Latino political leaders prefer to mobilize voters in more competitive elections (Cassel, 2002). Mobilization efforts also figured as a very important determinant in the 1996 elections voting turnout in California, Florida and Texas (Shaw, dela Garza and Lee, 2000). Nevertheless, Harry Pachon and Louis De Sipio recognize that the structural changes such as the extension of the Voting Rights, combined with ethnic political mobilization in Latino communities and efforts of groups such as MALDEF, contributed to the increased electoral and political clout of the Hispanics. In their list of HEOs in the 1990s, they have found out that there were 4,004 Hispanics holding publicly-elected offices nationwide – 1% of the national total; nine states accounting for 96% of HEOs in the US; and that Hispanics were represented at all levels of government, except for the Presidency. The only factors that could mitigate the increasing trend of HEOs in the following years would be young Hispanic population and non-citizenship. (Pachon and De Sipio, 1992). Thus far, the numerous and variegated variables and determinants presented above attest that it is not easy to explain Hispanic voting behavior. Thus it is best to start with a single locality to test which of these – or a combination of these — variables could best explain Hispanic voting. (In this case, I have chosen to zero in on Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the United States. ) Though in the process, I should be cautious against committing what Eldersveld warned with respect to generalizing from single cases. Nonetheless, I believe that studies such as this could make a good case for comparing with similar political settings, and eventually, in explaining Hispanic political behavior. References: Antunes, G. and Gaitz, C. (1975) Ethnicity and Participation: A Study of Mexican-Americans, Blacks and Whites. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 80, No. 5, 1192-1211. Arvizu, J. and Garcia, C. (1996) Latino Voting Participation: Explaining and Differentiating Latino Voting Turnout. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 2, 104-128. Cassel, C. (2002) Hispanic Turnout: Estimates from Validated Voting Data. Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2, 391-408. Chavez, L. (1992) Hispanics, Affirmative Action and Voting. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 523, 75-87. Dela Garza, R. , Lee, J. and Shaw, D. (2000) Examining Latino Turnout in 1996: A Three-State, Validated Survey Approach. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, No. 2, 338-346. Eldersveld, S. J. (1951) Theory and Method in Voting Behavior Research. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 13, No. 1, 70-87. Hero, R. (1990) Hispanics in Urban Government and Politics: Some Findings, Comparisons and Implications. The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 2, 403-414. Hero, R. and Tolbert, C. (1995) Latinos and Substantive Representation in the US House of Representatives: Direct, Indirect or Nonexistent? American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 39, No. 3, 640-652. Kerr, B. and Miller, W. (1997) Latino Representation, It’s Direct and Indirect. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, No. 3, 1066-1071. Pachon, H. and De Sipio, L. (1992) Latino Elected Officials in the 1990s. PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 25, No. 2, 212-217. Shinn, A. (1971) A Note on Voter Registration and Turnout in Texas, 1960-1970. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 33, No. 4, 1120-1129. Southwestern Social Science Association. (1997, March 27) The Victor Morales for US Senate Campaign: Did the Sleeping Giant Notice an Unusual Campaign? Tanneeru, M. (2007, September 28). Inside the Hispanic Vote: Growing in Numbers, Growing in Diversity. Retrieved from : http://www. cnn. com/2007/US/09/28/hispanic. vote/index. html Uhlaner, C. J. (1989) Rational Turnout: The Neglected Role of Groups. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 33, No. 2, 390-422.