The Latino Vote in 2004 - Elcano Royal Institute

Subject

This article explores how electoral structures and partisanship interact with the size and distribution of the Hispanic population to shape the role Latinos will play in the 2004 presidential election.

Summary

The growth of the Latino population has led to claims that Hispanics will play a major role in the 2004 presidential election. These claims are misleading because they rely exclusively on population size and ignore a variety of structural and behavioral factors that shape the ultimate influence of the Latino vote. This article reviews how institutional factors such as the role of the Electoral College and partisan outreach influence Latino participation. It also examines how population distribution impacts Latino electoral clout. Finally, it reviews historical patterns, policy preferences and partisan identification patterns to explain why the majority of Latinos will vote Democratic in 2004.

Analysis

Because of immigration, Hispanic numbers increased from 9.6 million in 1970 to 37.4 million in 2002 making them the nation’s largest minority. This growth has led to claims that Latinos will play a major political in 2004 and the future. The tentativeness of realizing this potential is evident in that Hispanic leaders proclaimed in 1980 and again in 1990 that population size would propel Latinos into an electorate whose demands would have to be met. That goal has not yet been realized, and the structure of “national” elections that dominate the nation’s politics strongly suggests Hispanics will not be major players in 2004 or perhaps for years to come.

As is true in the election of prime ministers and presidents in established democracies across the globe, the American presidential election shapes the nation’s politics. Unlike the elections of other heads of state, however, the American election is national in the sense that the campaign is covered nationally by the media and because of events such as the Presidential debates that allow citizens to become informed about the personalities and policy preferences and of presidential candidates. From an electoral perspective, rather than a single contest measuring the preferences of the national electorate, the presidential election consists of winner-take-all elections in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Thus, the winner is not who received the greatest number of votes nationally. Instead the winner is the candidate who received the highest number of votes from the Electoral College which allocates votes based on a formula that allocates votes to each state equal to its total number of senators (2) and congressional representatives. (Washington, D. C. receives a total of electoral votes equal to that of the least populous state, i.e., 3.) Although one candidate usually wins both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote, as was evident in 2000, this formula can result in the candidate who lost the popular vote winning the presidency.

As Table 1 illustrates, that procedure advantages small states such as Wyoming because it gives greater weight to their citizens than to the citizens of large states like Texas. A voter in Wyoming, for example, is “worth” 3.8 voters in Texas. This formula creates incentives for campaigns to deemphasize maximizing their popular vote in favor of a strategy that is designed to win a majority in the Electoral College. In practical terms this results in targeting numerous small states where a party has a strong following rather than attempting to win votes in large states which are dominated by their opponent.

Table 1:

Distribution and Weight of Electoral College Votes of Large vs. Small States

State	Population	Electoral Votes	Electoral Votes/Capita
Wyoming	501,242	3	167,081
California	35,484,453	55	645,172
New York	19,190,115	31	619,036
Texas	22,118,509	34	409,602

This structure illustrates two factors that help explain why Latinos have not maximized their electoral clout. First, over 75 percent of Latino voters lived in six states in 2000, with 50 percent residing in Texas and California (Table 2). Hispanics, thus, are extremely concentrated in a few large states while non-Hispanic voters are distributed among states of all sizes. Thus, the Electoral College formula has a greater negative impact on Latinos than on white voters.

Table 2: Latino Voters by State

	State	# of Latino Registered Voters (in 1,000)	%	Cumulative %	% of Latino Voters in 11states
1	CALIFORNIA	1,919	25.4%	25.4%	29%
2	TEXAS	1,905	25.2%	50.7%	29%
3	FLORIDA	802	10.6%	61.3%	12%
4	NEW YORK	603	8.0%	69.3%	9%
5	ARIZONA	304	4.0%	73.3%	5%
6	ILLINOIS	262	3.5%	76.8%	4%
7	NEW MEXICO	239	3.2%	80.0%	4%
8	NEW JERSEY	212	2.8%	82.8%	3%
9	COLORADO	199	2.6%	85.4%	3%
10	VIRGINIA	106	1.4%	86.8%	2%
11	MASSACHUSETTS	103	1.4%	88.2%	2%
	Total	6,654

The second and perhaps more significant factor is that slightly more than three quarters of all Latino voters reside in non-competitive states, with three controlled by Democrats and two by Republicans. While Hispanics are important members of the dominant Democratic coalition in California, Illinois and New York they are not crucial to it. Indeed, our analysis of presidential elections from 1988-2000 indicate that the final outcome in these states would have been unchanged even if no Hispanics had voted in any of them. Because the majority of Latinos in Arizona and Texas are Democrats, they are even more irrelevant to the election results in these Republican dominated states. Thus, neither Democrats nor Republicans have much to gain from increasing Latino turnout per se.

The only major state that is an exception to this pattern is Florida where the total electorate is so closely divided that Latinos have the capability of determining which party will win the state. As Republicans, if they turnout in large numbers as they did in 2000, they will help their party win the state. If they vote at lower rates or if a substantial number of traditionally Republican Cubans switch parties, or if the non-Cuban Latinos who are rapidly increasing vote substantially Democratic, Democrats are likely to carry the state. For these reasons, both parties invest heavily in wooing Florida’s Hispanic voter.

A third factor, one unrelated to the structure of the Electoral College, is that Latinos vote at lower rates than Anglos or African Americans. Less than half of Latino citizens vote compared to 62 percent of Anglos and 57 percent of African Americans, and Hispanic registration rates are seven percent lower than Anglos.

Despite this overall lack of electoral clout, both parties are symbolically reaching out to Hispanics in the current election. Senator Kerry and President Bush are personally using Spanish in their barnstorming speeches, and both campaigns are running Spanish language adds. Republicans courting centers on claims that Latinos share their core values, i. e., they are family oriented, religious and committed to economic independence rather than to relying on social welfare. Democrats counter that they are the party that is more attentive to the needs of marginalized groups and the working class which is why Latinos will remain loyal to their deeply rooted Democratic ties.

There are two reasons for this outreach. First, the continued growth of the Latino population guarantees that Hispanics will become more important in the future. Neither party can afford to write off that potential. Second, Florida, New Mexico and perhaps Colorado remain in play as the election draws to a close, and Hispanics will probably be a key voting bloc in all of these. Both campaigns, therefore, are concentrating on Hispanics in these states, and doing so requires at least symbolic attention to Hispanics nationwide.

Which party will Hispanics endorse? History points to the Democrats. The majority of Latinos has voted Democratic for half a century. This continued through 2000, the first time that a Republican actively courted their vote. Table 3 shows that Democrats carried the Latino vote in four of the five major Hispanic states, and that in three of these they did so at approximately a 3:1 rate. While this is lower than the levels at which African American voted for Vice-President Gore, it still constitutes massive support. In Texas, close to 45 percent of Hispanics voted for Bush. This relatively high rate probably reflects their support for a fellow Texan with a history of good relations with Mexican Americans and their well earned reputation for being the most conservative Latino voters outside of Florida. As has been the case since the 1960s, the only state in which Republicans won the Hispanic vote in 2000 was Florida.

Table 3

Latino Vote in the 2000 Presidential Election by Partisanship

(Column Percentages)

	Strong Democrat	Not Very Strong Democrat	Independent Close to Democrat	Independent	Independent Close to Republican	Not Very Strong Republican	Strong Republican	Total
California
Bush	4.52	18.28	10.00	50.00	100.00	78.26	95.00	27.12
Gore	95.48	81.72	90.00	50.00	0.00	21.74	5.00	72.88
Florida
Bush	6.25	36.17	15.79	72.41	100	94.05	98.94	66.85
Gore	93.75	63.83	84.21	27.59	0	5.95	1.06	33.15
Illinois
Bush	4.69	16.8	25	36.36	76.92	75	90.91	24.3
Gore	95.31	83.2	75	63.64	23.08	25	9.09	75.7
New York
Bush	3.42	4.72	0	40	66.67	63.64	73.68	11.73
Gore	96.58	95.28	100	60	33.33	36.36	26.32	88.27
Texas
Bush	11	36.11	25	66.67	76.92	100	95.65	44.00
Gore	89	63.89	75	33.33	23.08	0	4.35	55.88

Source: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute 2000 election survey.

Two other factors suggest Hispanics will continue to vote Democratic. First, although Republican identifiers increase as income rise, even at the highest income levels Hispanic identifiers do not exceed 25 percent of all partisans. Second, the large majority of Hispanics also disagree with Republican views on issues central to the Republican agenda. For example they are ambivalent regarding abortion while the Republican agenda adamantly opposes it, and they support affirmative action, government sponsored health insurance and gun control, policies Republicans strongly reject.

Further evidence that Republicans will have a difficult time wooing Latinos to their fold is that contrary to Republican claims and despite targeted outreach, except in Florida the Hispanic electorate has moved closer to the Democrats in recent years as Table 4 shows. Indeed, in several states, increases in pro-Democratic sentiments double or triple changes in pro-Republican attitudes.

Table 4

Changing Affinity Toward Political Parties

(Column Percentages)

	California	Florida	Illinois	New York	Texas
Much closer to Rep. than before	4.75	21.55	4.7	4.7	8.6
Somewhat closer to Rep. than before	4.75	10.53	3.96	3.96	7.86
Much closer to Dem. Than before	18.25	10.78	21.29	21.29	17.2
Somewhat closer to Dem. than before	12	5.01	9.16	9.16	10.32
No change in feelings	58	46.12	55.2	55.2	50.37
Don’t Know	2.25	6.02	5.69	5.69	5.65
Total	100	100	100	100	100

Source: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute 2000 election survey.

Additionally, as Table 3 illustrates, in California, Illinois and New York Republican identifiers are more likely to have voted for Gore than Democrats are to have voted for Bush. Nonetheless, in Texas where Latino Democrats outnumber Republicans, the reverse is true, as is also the case in Florida where Latinos Republicans outnumber their Democratic counterparts.

In view of these patterns, it should not be surprising that neither party is investing heavily in the Latino vote this year. Democrats either have locks on states with large Hispanic populations such as California, or they are writing off states such as Arizona where even large Hispanic turnouts will not enable them to win. Republicans similarly are writing off the great majority of the Latino vote because it resides in heavily Latino states that Democrats are likely to carry. Thus, the only states where both parties are likely to actively reach out to Hispanics are Florida, New Mexico and perhaps Colorado. If Democrats win New Mexico, it will be thanks to Latinos. If they win Colorado, Latinos will be part of their winning coalition but will necessarily be central to it. If Republicans win Florida, they will likely owe their victory to Hispanic voters. Given that Florida is a much larger state than New Mexico, this suggests that if Republicans win the presidency Latinos will have played a great and more visible role in that triumph. On the other hand, if the Democrats win, the Latino role will be less visibly important.

Thus, although the Democrats will win the overwhelming majority of Latino votes in 2004, the probable state by state configuration of the likely vote indicates Latino voters will, as was true in 2000, have a very limited voice in the final outcome. While there is a variety of scenarios within which the Latino vote could become crucial, all of these involve states with large Hispanic populations becoming so competitive that Latinos are in a position to push Democrats to victory. This is essentially an impossible development, however. To the extent that they affect the outcome of the election in favor of Democrats, it will be as a result of their turnout in two small states, New Mexico and Colorado. Once again, therefore, most Latinos are unlikely to be among the guests of honor at any post-election celebrations.

As in 2000, it is quite likely that a Republican victory will hinge on winning Florida. As was true in that election, this means that Latinos are likely to play a major role in the outcome of the election. Ironically, if this occurs, it will once again indicate that even though only approximately one-third of Latinos vote Republican, thanks to the structure of the presidential election they are more important to Republicans than the two-thirds of Latinos who vote Democratic.

Conclusion

The dramatic increase in the Latino population in recent decades has led to claims that Latinos would play a major role in the 2004 election. This prediction will not be realized because the winner of the election will be determined by the Electoral College which allocates votes based on state level results rather than on the popular vote each candidate receives. The rules that govern the Electoral College result in each political parties ignoring the states dominated by the other and both targeting a small number of states which neither party controls. This strategy ignores all but one major state with large Hispanic populations. The only exception to this pattern is Florida which is the only major state in which both parties pursue Hispanic voters. Republicans and Democrats also are targeting Latinos in New Mexico, the only other state with a large Latino population that neither party currently dominates.

The Latino vote will become increasingly important in the coming years. This is why both parties are reaching out to Latino voters. Republican claims not withstanding, historical traditions and policy preferences strongly suggest that in 2004 and beyond the majority of Latinos will support the Democratic Party.

Rodolfo O. de la Garza

Eaton Professor of Administrative Law and Municipal Science, Department of Political Science, Columbia University

Source: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute 2000 election survey.

Table 4

Changing Affinity Toward Political Parties

(Column Percentages)

	California	Florida	Illinois	New York	Texas
Much closer to Rep. than before	4.75	21.55	4.7	4.7	8.6
Somewhat closer to Rep. than before	4.75	10.53	3.96	3.96	7.86
Much closer to Dem. Than before	18.25	10.78	21.29	21.29	17.2
Somewhat closer to Dem. than before	12	5.01	9.16	9.16	10.32
No change in feelings	58	46.12	55.2	55.2	50.37
Don’t Know	2.25	6.02	5.69	5.69	5.65
Total	100	100	100	100	100

Source: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute 2000 election survey.

Conclusion: The dramatic increase in the Latino population in recent decades has led to claims that Latinos would play a major role in the 2004 election. This prediction will not be realized because the winner of the election will be determined by the Electoral College which allocates votes based on state level results rather than on the popular vote each candidate receives. The rules that govern the Electoral College result in each political parties ignoring the states dominated by the other and both targeting a small number of states which neither party controls. This strategy ignores all but one major state with large Hispanic populations. The only exception to this pattern is Florida which is the only major state in which both parties pursue Hispanic voters. Republicans and Democrats also are targeting Latinos in New Mexico, the only other state with a large Latino population that neither party currently dominates.

Rodolfo O. de la Garza

Eaton Professor of Administrative Law and Municipal Science, Department of Political Science, Columbia University