Barreto 2007

American Political Science Review Vol. 101, No. 3 August 2007

DOI: 10.1017/S0003055407070293

S Se Puede! Latino Candidates and the Mobilizationof Latino VotersMATT A. BARRETO University of Washington

Traditional studies of political participation assume an electoral environment in which voters decidebetween two White candidates, and find Latino citizens less politically engaged. Given the growthin the number of Latino candidates for office over the past 20 years, this article tests whetherethnicity impacts Latino voting behavior. I argue that the presence of a Latino candidate mobilizes theLatino electorate, resulting in elevated voter turnout and strong support for the co-ethnic candidates.Although some research provides a theoretical basis for such a claim, this article brings together acomprehensive body of empirical evidence to suggest that ethnicity is salient for Latinos and providesa coherent theory that accounts for the empowering role of co-ethnic candidates. Analysis of recentmayoral elections in five major U.S. cities reveals that Latinos were consistently mobilized by co-ethniccandidates.

In an extensive review of research on Chicano vot-ing behavior, Garcia and Arce (1988) argue thatno consensus exists on whether ethnicity impactsvoting patterns. They note, strong cultural attach-ments have been found to be associated with eitherpolitical isolation and distance, or heightened ethnicgroup consciousness and politicization . . . [and] cur-rent research efforts are still sorting out their direc-tional effects (130). Almost 20 years later, there existsa widespread assumption that the directional effectshave been sorted out: ethnic voting persists amongLati-nos and ethnic attachment results in greater politicalparticipation. However, there is no nationally repre-sentative research that validates this claim.This article tests whether ethnicity impacts Latino1

voting behavior. Given the notable increases in Latinovoters andLatino candidates for office, a looming ques-tion remains: do Latinos follow an ethnic voting modelthat emphasizes shared ethnicity and ethnic candidates,or do they follow a strictly Downsian costbenefitanalysis model to voting? More than 40 years ago,Wolfinger noted in this journal that themost powerful

Matt A. Barreto is Assistant Professor of Political Science at theUniversity ofWashington, Box 353530, Seattle,WA98195 ([email protected]).A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2006 MidwestPolitical Science Association annual conference. Research in thisarticle was supported by the University of California Presidents dis-sertation fellowship; the Ford Foundation dissertation fellowship forminorities; the UC MEXUS dissertation grant; the UCI Center forthe Study of Democracy; and the University of Washington Institutefor Ethnic Studies in the United States. Throughout the course ofrevisions, helpful feedback was provided by Nathan Woods, GarySegura, Ricardo Ramrez, Harry Pachon, Stephen Nuno, FernandoGuerra, Mario Villarreal, Francisco Pedraza, Naomi Murakawa andChristopher Adolph. This article originated as a component of mydoctoral dissertation and a debt of gratitude is owed to BernieGrofman, Louis DeSipio, Katherine Tate, and Carole Uhlaner fortheir careful review and suggestions. Finally, Stephen Nicholson pro-vided unwavering support and sage advice on font selection. Anyremaining errors are mine alone.1 This article describes Latinos or Hispanics as those persons living(permanently) in theUnited States andwhose ancestry can be tracedto any of the Spanish-speaking countries of North, Central, or SouthAmerica, and excludes those of (European) Spanish and Braziliandecent. This definition of Latinos is consistent with most scholarlyresearch.

and visible sign of ethnic political relevance is a fellow-ethnics name at the head of the ticket (1965, 905).Whereas some scholars provide a strong theoreticalbasis for such a claim (Fraga 1988; Hero 1992), nocomprehensive body of empirical evidence has beenamassed2 to suggest that ethnicity is salient for Lati-nos, and no coherent theory exists that accounts forthe empowering role of co-ethnic candidates.During the 1960s and 1970s, Latino elected officials

andLatino voterswere not visible to the mainstream.Pachon and DeSipio note that, while there were His-panic elected officials and Latino community activism,no one spoke of Latino politics or the Hispanic votein national politics (1992, 212). In 1973, an enumer-ation of Spanish surnamed elected officials countedjust 10 Latinos elected to any level of office in NewYork, and just 13 in Florida (Lemus 1973). In 2006, theNationalAssociation of LatinoElected andAppointedOfficials (NALEO) counted 66 in New York and 125in Florida and over 6,000 Latinos holding elected of-fice throughout the United States. It is clear that theelectoral landscape has changedour understandingof American politics has not evolved so rapidly.Beyond examining the mobilizing effect for Latino

voters, this article provides an important look at the im-pact of Latino candidates on White, Black, and AsianAmerican voters across the country. The most con-sistent finding across each election examined here isthat Latino voters witness higher rates of voter turnoutandmajority support for Latino candidates in co-ethniccandidate elections; for non-Latinos this is not the case.The pattern of mobilization for Latinos uncovered inthis research represents a divergence from traditionalfindings.I argue that previous empirical studies understate

the effect that competitive Latino candidates have onLatino voting. Building on shared group consciousnessand minority empowerment, the case is made that insome circumstances, Latinos should be more likely to

2 This is despite numerous case studies available in court transcriptsof expert witness testimony that strongly support the findings thatLatino voters are mobilized by Latino candidates (e.g.,Garza v. LosAngeles County, Ruiz v. Santa Maria, Martinez v. Bush).

425

Latino Candidates and the Mobilization of Latino Voters August 2007

vote, and to vote in favor of the co-ethnic candidate. In2001 and again in 2003, Latino candidates contestedmayoral elections in Americas largest citiesLosAngeles, Houston, New York, Denver, and San Fran-cisco. Although none of the five Latino mayoral hope-fuls won their respective elections,3 their impact onLatino political behavior should not be ignored.Each of the five races reviewed here has a unique

political and cultural environment making the resultsmore broadly applicable than a case study of one elec-tion. Further, they represent a challenge to the con-ventional wisdom that Latinos vote heavily Democrat(Uhlaner and Garcia 2005), as the Latino candidatesin this study were Democrat, Republican, and Greenparty members, and held a broad array of political ide-ologies. In addition to political differences, the candi-dates were ofMexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban back-ground. Some were immigrants themselves; others hadimmigrant parents or grandparents. Thus, these fivecities provide an ideal setting to test whether sharedethnicity between a Latino candidate and voter is amobilizing factor. As Latino citizenship, registration,and voter mobilization drives increase in cities acrossthe country, we should not be surprised to find similarelectoral contexts influencing Latino participation andcandidate preference.

REDEVELOPING A THEORY OF ETHNICPOLITICSThe premise that Latinos are less likely to participatethan non-Latinos is now widely accepted and has beenrepeatedly demonstrated across time and in a varietyof contexts (Calvo and Rosenstone 1989; Huntington2004). In the face of this accumulated evidence, morerecent works indicate that, at least in some circum-stances, Latinos are likely to turnout at rates higherthan the turnout rates of other racial and ethnic groups(Barreto, Segura, and Woods 2004; Kaufmann 2003).Generally, these studies build on evidence that racial-ized contexts may lead more Latinos to become inter-ested and involved in politics (de la Garza, Menchaca,and DeSipio 1994; Pantoja, Ramrez, and Segura 2001;Pantoja and Woods 1999). Most of these analyses findthat changes in several measures of Latino participa-tion are in part the result of the electoral environment,but they still conclude that Latinos are, on average, lesslikely to engage politically after taking account of thedemographic and naturalization factors.Similarly, this article holds that if the right electoral

context is present, Latinos will be more likely to par-ticipate. A confluence of two factors leads to the ex-pectation that the electoral context was suitable forthis increase in Latino voting. The first factor was acombination of issues and circumstances covering thelatter half of the 1990s, arguably part of a nationalanti-immigrant movement. The second factor was the

3 Although Antonio Villaraigosa was elected mayor of Los Angelesin 2005 and Fernando Ferrer won the New York City Democraticprimary in 2005 (and ultimately lost to incumbent Mayor MichaelBloomberg).

prominent and viable candidacy of a Latino contestantfor a top of the ticket post: city Mayor. Further, in fourof the five4 cities, it was the first time aLatino candidatehad seriously contested the mayoral election.

The Ethnic-Candidate ParadigmThis article relies on an ethnic-candidate paradigmof American politics established in the twentieth cen-tury (Dahl 1961; Wolfinger 1965) and advances thisfor Latinos in the twenty-first century. As the Latinopopulation grows across the country and more Latinocandidates run for mayor, statewide office and theU.S. Senate, scholars and pundits alike will need afirm understanding of the dynamics at play within theLatino community, and also between the Latino andnon-Latino communities. It is not enough to simplystate that co-ethnic candidatesmatter.Weneeda soundtheory for understanding why they matter, so we canidentify cases and sort out results. Two factors existin American politics today that make co-ethnic candi-dates salient toLatino voters. First, by definitionpeoplewho self-identify as Latino are members of a commonethnic group, and for a variety of reasons, ethnicityis a salient political issue for Latino voters (for a fulldevelopment of this argument see Sanchez 2006). Sec-ond, with regard to campaigns, candidate characteris-tics are increasingly emphasized and matter to voters.The convergence of a growing Latino electorate and acampaign system that focuses on candidate traits pro-vides the foundation for exploring the impact of sharedethnicity and co-ethnic candidates.However, if the concept of shared ethnicity is im-

material to Latino voters, co-ethnic candidates shouldhave no impact on voting calculi. I argue that sharedethnicity is an important component of Latino polit-ical incorporation for five reasons: (1) Latinos sharea Latin American heritage and culture including theprevalence of Spanish; (2) they draw on a shared immi-grant experience; (3) continued discrimination againstLatinos highlights their commonality (Masuoka 2006;Sanchez 2006); (4) ethnic candidates typically focus onco-ethnics as their base, reinforcing the bond (Leigh-ley 2001; Tate 1991); and (5) Spanish surname candi-date on the ballot cues known traits in typically low-information environments (Jacobsen 1987; Wolfinger1965).Shared ethnicity and ethnic attachment are only

half of the story. For co-ethnic candidates to influenceLatino voting behavior, it must be demonstrated thatcandidate characteristics, beyond their policy state-ments or partisanship, matter to voters. Among theearliest explanations of vote preference, Downs (1957)argues that voters will evaluate the competing candi-date policy positions, leaving little room for affect orcandidate appeal. However campaign practices havechanged over the past 50 years. DeFrancesco Soto and

4 In Denver, first-time Latino candidates for U.S. Senate andCongress may have helped generate this same feeling, although thiscase does represent an interesting contrast to the other four cities,given that a Latino had been elected mayor during the 1980s.

426

American Political Science Review Vol. 101, No. 3

Merolla (2006) point out that modern campaigns relyheavily on Spanish language and Latino-targeted adsto get out the vote, often emphasizing a candidatesconnection to the Latino community. I argue that thereare five reasons why candidate traits play a major rolein voting behavior: (1) the diminishing role of politicalparties (Wattenberg 1994); (2) the rise of candidatecentered elections (Tedin and Murray 1981); (3) can-didate appeals for groups of voters (Popkin 1991);(4) media focus on ethnicity of candidates (Reeves1990); and (5) the continuing lack ofminority represen-tation (Bowler and Segura 2005). This model of under-standing the American electorate continues to buildon the heuristics literature. Popkin notes that votersconstantly rely on information shortcuts when decidingwhether and how to vote.With respect to Latinos, Pan-toja, Nicholson, and Segura (2006) find that candidate-based cues are very important, especially among low-information voters. I argue that co-ethnic candidatesthemselves represent an important heuristic device bysignaling their shared ethnicity to Latino voters.

Ethnic Politics Renewed: Latinos and the1990sAccording toDeSipio (1996), instead of relying on eth-nicity, Latino voter participation may be more likelyinfluenced by traditional socioeconomic and demo-graphic predictors of political participation. He arguesthat ethnicity will come to play less of a role in theirpolitical decision-making than will other societal di-visions, (8). Although ethnicity is likely to have nodistinct impact in thismodel, there is the chance that itcould emerge in unique circumstances or in responseto ethnic-based discrimination, but the conclusionis that these scenarios are unlikely (9). DeSipio iscorrect in establishing these criteria as necessary forthe development of ethnicity as a central componentof the politicization of Latinos, yet he underestimatesthe likelihood of its occurrence. The ethnically chargedcontext found in California, Texas, New York, andColorado during the 1990s, culminating in the 2001and 2003 mayoral elections, offers such an example.Although some states experienced more discrimina-tion and protest related to Latino issues than others,many examples abound in eachof these four states, partof a larger national anti-immigration trend that swelledin the 1990s (Fry 2001; Nelson 1994). Indeed such acontext exists in other states from Idaho to Arizonato Iowa, which witnessed the rise of anti-immigrantgroups in response to a growing Latino and immi-grant population. As viable Latino candidates emergeelsewhere, it is reasonable to suspect that the politicalenvironment may foster similar contentious periods ofethnic politics.Although the examples of anti-Latino ballot mea-

sures from California are typically the best known,ethnically charged environments existed in Colorado,Texas, and New York as well. First, all four of thesestates witnessed an immigrant-based protest move-ment in response to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act thatrestricted many immigrants from receiving state and

federal benefits. In addition, local issues drew attentionto the Latino community as the other. Charges ofpolice brutality in the Latino community, English-onlyworkplace policies, school segregation, the roundup ofundocumented immigrants, and new waves of immi-gration from Latin America all highlighted the sharedethnicity of Latinos in these four states.A clear result of this array of issues is that, given

elite and media attention to these issues, Latinos aremore likely to side with other Latinos on matters ofpolitical significance, even ones with whom they haveonly the term Latino in common. Latinos were tar-geted without regard to age, generational status, citi-zenship, language skills, and national origin. As such,these issues and the political climate they engenderedhad the result of making Latinos more cohesive as apolitical force and more likely to weigh in on polit-ical issues directly affecting them. This description ofevents ties in nicely with the notion of ethnic identifica-tion or shared group consciousness, which has recentlyenjoyed something of a rebirth (Masuoka 2006). Fora time, many scholars echoed Dahls (1961) sentimentthat the strength of ethnic ties as a factor in localpolitics surely must recede. However, research in sub-sequent decades continued to evidence the importanceof group identification in understanding minority po-litical behavior. Although the weight of this researchfocused on the experience of African Americans, morerecently scholars have taken up the question of howLatino group identity may affect political engagement(e.g., Sanchez 2006).The concept of group consciousness is rooted in at-

tempts to resolve the question of relatively high Blackpolitical participation in the face of limited politicalresources (Miller et al. 1981). The standard measuresof resourcesincome, education, and organizationalmembershipcould not explain the participatory ac-tivities of groups disadvantaged in these areas. Withstandard participation models unable to account forhigh levels of minority participation, several authorssettled on the concept of group identity as the missingingredient. In short, the idea was simply that membersof minority groups who shared an identity would bemore likely to participate if they saw their group aspolitically disadvantaged. This theory fits the positionof Latinos in the 1990s/2000s quite well.In an early attempt to apply this theory to Latino

populations,Garcia et al. (1991) beginwith the premisethat ethnicity may provide a structuring basis forvalues, opinions and attitudes, but do not go so faras to suggest it directly influences participation. Inmore recent work, Leighley (2001) extends the sharedgroup context argument to the Latino electorate andidentified three contextual influences that reduce thecosts and increase the benefits of voting for Latinos.These are elite mobilization, relational goods, andracial/ethnic context, the latter two of which are di-rectly applicable in this framework. Most studies ofparticipation continue to focus on individual levelmea-sures such as demographic characteristics, which per-form poorly for minority groups. Leighley explainsthe deficiencies of traditional SES-driven models of

427


turnout for Latino populations: our theories of par-ticipation assumed to be generalizable across racialand ethnic groups are tested primarily on Anglos andtypically ignore the contextual characteristics empha-sized in theories of minority participation, while theo-ries of group mobilization are rarely tested empiricallyin a systematic fashion across racial and ethnic groups(2001, 6).Leighley argues that Latino turnout might be higher

when co-ethnic candidates are on the ballot becauseminority candidates direct more resources towardmobilizing groups, or because minority candidateschanges individuals calculations of the (potential) ben-efits or costs of voting (2001, 43). Unfortunately, nosystematic evidence on the effects of political empow-erment on Latino mobilization and participation hasbeen documented (2001, 43), suggesting the relevanceof the empirical findings contained in this article.The importance of the concepts discussed previously,

surrounding group identity and group consciousness,is clearly demonstrated in studies of minority officeholding and its effect on minority political behavior.At least since Browning, Marshall, and Tabbs (1984)seminal work, we have known that cities with minor-ity representation on city councils or in the Mayorsoffice exhibit more policy responsiveness in terms ofminority contracting and municipal employment. Withrespect to Latinos, Espino (2007) finds despite the insti-tutional pressures of Congress, Latino elected officialsdemonstrate a commitment to voting for pro-Latinopolicies. Their arguments, that as minorities gain accessto power in governing institutions, they obtain politi-cal representation, provide a basis for understandingminority political behavior. Widely understood as theempowerment or incorporation hypothesis, thissuggests similarly that minority communities are morelikely to be involved in politics when minority can-didates have a meaningful opportunity to be elected(Bobo and Gilliam 1990; Gilliam 1996).Building on existing scholarship on minority politi-

cal empowerment, research on mayoral elections arethe most relevant here. Although many studies havebeen conducted of Black mayoral candidates, they arefrequently conducted in isolation of one another. Forexample, with respect to Chicago, Pinderhughes (1987)finds that the Harold Washington candidacy leads togreater political participation in predominantly Blackwards and offers a rich contextual history of race rela-tions in Chicago. Elsewhere, Sonenshein (1993) doc-uments the persistence of racial politics during theBradley years in Los Angeles. In Philadelphia, Keiser(1990) estimates thatBlack voters uniformly supportedGoode in 1983 making him the first Black mayor, butconfines his theory and analysis to just Philadelphia.Similar research on African-American empowermentinmayoral elections exists forAtlanta, Cleveland, NewOrleans,NewYork, SanFrancisco,Memphis, andmanymore cities. Despite the lack of cohesiveness, the litera-ture on Black mayoral politics established the premisethat, due to patronage, city contracts, and group pride,Black political representation resulted in a sense ofBlack empowerment and mobilization. Tate (1991)brings the scattered mayoral analysis together in her

work on Black mobilization and the Presidential can-didacy of Jesse Jackson. Her review of previous may-oral elections including Cleveland and Chicago, andthe candidacy of Jackson, leads her to conclude thatblacks turn out and vote in greater numbers when ablack is competing for elective office because of grouployalty, pride, and increased interest (1161). Not onlyare Black voters more interested and aware, but Tatestates that Black candidates often campaign more in-tensively and spend greater resources in black commu-nities (1161).With respect to Latino political empowerment, far

fewer studies exist with even less cohesiveness. Hill,Moreno, and Cue (2001) find that Cuban-Americancandidates for mayor inMiami have resulted in greatermobilization and heightened ethnic politics, yet pro-vide little in the way of comparisons outside of SouthFlorida. In Denver, Hero and Clarke (2003) find ev-idence for a BlackLatino coalition in the electionsof Pena and Webb, the cities first Latino and Blackmayors, although they do not connect the findings toSanAntonio, El Paso, orMiami, othermajor cities withLatino mayoral victories. Brichetto and de la Garza(1985) and Fraga (1988) provide a descriptive accountof Chicano politicalmobilization in the 1981 election ofHenry Cisneros, andmore recentlyManzano and Vega(2006) find continued evidence of ethnically polarizedvoting in theCastro election, yet none of these analysesgo beyond San Antonio. The closest to a unifying the-ory of Latino empowerment is probably a descriptivearticle by Munoz and Henry (1986) comparing Latinovoting patterns in Denver and San Antonio mayoralelections and finding similarities in ethnic-based mobi-lization of Latino voters.The elections reported in this analysis help bridge

the gap of previous work. Most important to the re-search design is that in none of the five cities, did aLatino Democrat face off against an Anglo Repub-lican, a situation that would make it difficult to dis-entangle partisan and ethnic loyalties, given Latinossustained preference for the Democratic Party (Cain,Kiewiet, and Uhlaner 1991). The Latino candidatesin the analysis were members of the Democratic, Re-publican, and Green Parties, whereas their opponentspartisanship is held constant, all being Democrats (infour of the five citiesthe exception is New Yorkthe mayoral election is not a partisan contest). Thenon-Latino opponents are also diverse, one being anAfrican American; one Jewish American; and the oth-ers, Anglo Protestants. Given the differences amongthe cities, the elections included are an ideal settingto test the effects of shared ethnicity on Latino votermobilization and vote choice. An important note tothe cases analyzed in this article is that all five of theLatino candidates were viable and received importantendorsements, donations, and media attention. Latinovoters, like all voters, are unlikely to be mobilized bya poorly run campaign, with few resources, and littlehope of success, regardless of the candidates ethnicity.Further, other important facets of the campaign, suchas scandal or unpopular policy positions, will likelymediate the impact of shared ethnicity or partisanship,as was the case for Cruz Bustamante in Californias

428


2003 recall election (see DeSipio and Masuoka 2005).However, if across all five contests in different parts ofthe country, with different Latino populations, ethnic-ity appears to be a politically relevant variable, we havesomething more than just anecdotal evidence. Indeed,wewill have a systematic and rigorous test of the sharedethnicity hypothesis, which will inform new waves ofresearch in Latino politics in the twenty-first century.

HypothesesGiven the expectation that a co-ethnic candidate willspur increased Latino participation (among registeredvoters), we should also expect to find that Latinos willgreatly support the co-ethnic candidacy. The two phe-nomena would seem to be inextricably linked together.Incredibly, despite the growth in the number of Latinocandidates over the past 3 decades, few scholarly effortshave been made to understand the impact of co-ethniccandidates on both turnout and voting preferences,even as a mountain of evidence pointing to racial blocvoting in VRA lawsuits accumulates (see, e.g., Abosch,Barreto, and Woods, 2007; Engstrom and Brischetto1997; Grofman 1993). Instead, studies suggest that eth-nicity is not a determinant of vote choice. At most,ethnicity is thought to have an indirect influence ofvote choice, by influencing partisanship (Graves andLee 2000).On the contrary, I argue that ethnicity should play a

significant role and that Latinos will be more likely tosupport their co-ethnic candidate in the 2001 and 2003mayoral elections. Given the combination of a politi-cized shared group experience, and the presence of acoethnic candidate, Latinos should not be expected topass up an opportunity to elect that candidate. Becausethe mayoral elections are nonpartisan in nature (orone case a partisan primary), it is possible to sidestepthe Graves and Lee finding that the ethnicity effect ismediated by partisanship. If ethnicity only influencedpartisanship, rather than directly influencing candidatepreference, there would be no discernible differenceamong Latino votes for Hahn and Villaraigosa, Ferrerand Green, or Mares and Hickenlooperbecause allsix contestants were Democrats. On the other hand,Sanchez, a Republican, and Gonzalez, a Green, bothfaced Democratic opponents and should be the lesserpreferred candidates if the arguments advanced byGraves and Lee (2000) and Cain and Kiewiet (1984)are still true today.The two specific questions this paper explores are

oriented toward elections with top-of-the-ticket viableco-ethnic candidates. Although Latino candidates arepresent on the ballot in many elections, this theoret-ical position is premised on the notion that top-of-the-ticket candidates are more important to ethnicmobilization. Viable top-of-the-ticket candidates arekey because they garner more media attention, havehigher name recognition, and represent an importantrole for minority communities as the executive officeholder.5 Controlling for standard predictors of political

5 Thus, we would expect similar findings with respect to Latinoturnout and candidate preference when a Latino candidate is run-

participation such as partisanship, education, income,and age, this research tests the following hypotheses:

H1: Latinos are significantly more likely to vote in favor ofLatino candidates.H2: Latinos will have significantly higher rates of voting inan election with a co-ethnic candidate.

I examine these questions, respectively, by estimat-ing whether high-percentage Latino precincts experi-ence higher or lower voter turnout when a Latino can-didate is running; whether turnout in these precinctsis higher than that in low-percentage Latino precincts;and by estimating whether heavily Latino precincts fa-vor the co-ethnic candidate. The data are aggregated atthe precinct level, making interpretation about individ-ual Latino voters difficult. Despite this limitation, thisresearch presents an important analysis on the role ofethnicity in voter turnout and candidate preference inheavily Latino jurisdictions. I now turn to a discussionof the analytical approach, the data, and a presentationof the estimates.

DATA AND METHODOLOGYThe units of analysis are the individual precincts ineach of the five cities noted previously: Los Angeles,Houston, NewYork, San Francisco, andDenver.6 Eachcity analysis consists of at least two elections, one con-taining a Latino mayoral candidate, one with no suchLatino candidate (see Appendix, Table A1). For eachlocation, data was collected from three main sourcesthe respective County Registrar of Voters database,the City Clerk Statement of Votes Cast, and from theU.S. Census Bureau.7Data were merged together at the precinct level

so that vote totals, candidate percentages, and demo-graphic characteristics of each precinct were along-side one another in a consistent fashion. In full thetotal number of observations stands at 6,776 precincts,which represents all complete precincts in the five cities(see Appendix, Table A2). There are two importantmethodological notes that accompany this research.First, because the unit of analysis is the precinct and notthe individual voter, this research offersmore about theinstitution of the precinct or political jurisdiction thanindividual patterns of political behavior.The ecological inference problem, first noted by

Robinson (1950), stems from the attempt to inferindividual-level behavior from aggregate data. That is,if we find that high-density Latino precincts maintain

ning for President (or Vice President), U.S. Senator, Governor, orMayor. In addition, this assumption may hold true for lower ballotoffices in a community where a Latino candidate would be the firstLatino elected to an office such as Congress, State Legislature, orCity Council.6 Due to space considerations, a full summary of the five elec-tions and candidates is not possible in this format; however, read-ers interested in more background on these five cases can read abrief summary compiled by the author, and posted online: http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/research/mayoral.html7 This would not have been possible without assistance trackingdown data from JohnMollenkopf in the case of NewYork City, RichDeLeon for San Francisco, Richard Murray for Houston, RockyRushing for Denver, and Harry Pachon for Los Angeles.

429


a positive and significant relationship with voting, wecannot, to a certainty, report that Latinos in general arevoting at higher rates, even if this may be our underly-ing argument. Rather, we can only know that heavilyLatino precincts demonstrate higher rates of overallturnout than sparsely Latino precincts. To correct forthis shortcoming, Goodman (1953) and King (1997)have both developed methods for dealing with ecolog-ical inference; however, neither provide the researcherwith the ability to conduct a multivariate analysis ofturnout or candidate preference. To this extent, thefirst cut of data analysis employs a double-equationvariation of Kings ecological inference technique toidentify voting patterns by race and ethnicity in eachcity. Although these techniques are used by the courtsin evaluating claims of racial block voting, alone, theymay not suffice for social scientists interested in votingpatterns, independent of partisanship, age, income, andeducation. For this reason, I also conduct a multivari-ate analysis with aggregate-level data, to determine ifrace variables maintain a significant relationship afteradditional control variables are included. Further, toget a spatial sense of the relationship between Latinocandidates and the four main racial or ethnic groups ineach city, scatterplots are presented for vote preferenceby precinct.Second, it is important to note that the basis for

examining percentage of Latinos within a precinct re-lies on data for both registered voters and voting agepopulation (VAP).Where possible, registered voter es-timates are used to assess the Latino percentage withina precinct; however such data were not available for allfive cities, and U.S. Census VAP data were substituted.Thus, although the findings here may suggest that Lati-nos will participate at higher rates than non-Latinos incertain electoral circumstances, this may be confinedto the registered voting population. Previous studies ofLatino politics have noted the low rates of voting vis-a`-vis the adult population and adult, citizen population(DeSipio 1996; Pachon 1998, 1999). In recent work,Ramrez (2005, 2007) demonstrates the effectivenessof registration and mobilization drives by Latino civicorganizations; however, additional studies are neces-sary to determine what impact, if any, the presence ofLatino candidates has on narrowing the registrationgap for Latinos.

The Need for a Comparison ElectionAssessing Latino voter turnout in a single mayoralelection is interesting by itself; indeed doing so is theprimary focus of this article.However, a second, baseelection is useful both to provide a point of comparisonfor the Latino electorate, and to fully test the hypothe-ses. Thus, for eachmayoral election containing aLatinocandidate, a second election in which no Latino candi-date was present is included.In all five cases, the comparison election is a city-

wide mayoral election so that local dynamics remainconstant (i.e., same precinct boundaries and locations,uniformity in processing precinct-level results). For allcities except New York, the comparison election is the

previous mayoral election to the Latino election1997 in Los Angeles, 1999 in Houston, San Francisco,and Denver. In New York, the Latino candidate (Fer-rer) did not win the primary, providing for a non-Latino election in the general election that same year,2001.8 The main reason for including a comparisonelection is to test whether heavily Latino precinctsturned out to vote at higher rates when a Latino candi-date was present. However, we must also take accountof the relative competitiveness in each election thatmight be influencing turnout rates. To this extent, I ammostly concerned in the change in the standardizedcoefficient9 for the variable percentage of Latino; fromone election to another, holding citywide turnout con-stant. We can also compare standardized coefficientsfor the percentage Blacks and percentage of Whites todetermine whether the Latino candidate election hada similar, greater, or lesser effect on other racial andethnic groups in the city.

Variables and DesignTo examine the hypotheses, I offer several approachesin an effort to test these expectations from a variety ofanalytical positions. Several estimates are presented,each specified with slightly different goals in mind,and two dependent variables are always used: VoterPreference and Voter Turnout. In the first sequence ofmodels, Voter Preference is the number of votes castfor the respective Latino candidate divided by the totalnumber of votes cast for Mayor within each precinct.In the second set of models, the dependent variable isVoter Turnout and measured simply as the number oftotal votes cast divided by the total number of regis-tered voters within the precinct. In all vote preferencemodels, the two-person runoff election was used.Both of these dependent variablesVoter Prefer-

ence and Voter Turnoutare continuous variables,ranging theoretically from 0 to 100, and robust ordi-nary least-squares regression techniques are used inthe estimates of both.I bring a variety of well-known measures to bear

on the estimates of voter turnout and voter prefer-ence, and these independent variables are consistentfor both the models. The key predictor, of course, isPercent Latino. As stated earlier, this is measured intwo ways: either (1) as the total number of Latinosregistered to vote within each precinct, divided by thetotal number of registered voters; or (2) as the totalnumber of Latino adults residing within each precinct,

8 In this case, the turnout bias should be in favor of the generalelection to elect the mayor of New York instead of the Democraticprimary. Scholars have found for decades that turnout is significantlylower in primary elections as compared to general elections or runoffelections.9 For example, if the standardized coefficient for percent Latino inthe 1999 Houston mayoral election was .1052 and .0672 in 2001,the net change would be positive .0380. Even if the constant in 1999was 25 and in 2001 was 40, the standardized coefficient reports thenormalized contribution for thepercentLatino variable, independentof the constant (or turnout rate citywide) for both elections.

430


divided by the total adult population.10 I expect thatas Percent Latino increases within a precinct, voterturnout and vote preference for the Latino candidateshould be significantly and positively affected duringthe Latino mayoral elections. This should be viewedin sharp contrast to the comparison elections, wherethe expectation is that the size of a precincts Latinopopulation is a less powerful (and perhaps negative)predictor because of the absence of a Latino candidate.A number of control variables are included as well.

Racial and ethnic variables include Percent White, Per-cent Black, and Percent Asian and are all based onvoting age population data. Additional demographicvariables includePercent Republican, andPercentOver50. Each of these measures is derived from the list ofregistered voters or Census Bureau and is measuredas the percentage within each respective precinct. Twoadditional demographic variables are taken from cen-sus tract level informationCollege and Income. Col-lege is a calculation of the proportion of individualswithin the census tract with at least a college degree,and Income measures the median household incomewithin the census tract. Finally, consistent with Kingscritique ofGoodman, related to heteroskedasticity andvariance of unit size, I also control for total voter reg-istration (Registered) within each precinct.

RESULTS: THE MOBILIZATION OF LATINOVOTERS

Vote Preference Scatterplots: LatinoCandidates and Homogenous PrecinctsFor each of the five cities, data are brought together forthe percentage of the votewonby theLatino candidate,and what percentage each racial or ethnic group com-prises of the precinct.With these variables, it is possibleto create a simple array depicting the relationship be-tween Latino voters and Latino candidates. However,given that we have data for fourmajor racial and ethnicgroups, it is possible to disaggregate the non-Latinopopulation to determine whether Latino candidateshave a mobilizing, demobilizing, or indefinite effecton White, Black, and Asian American voters. Theseresults are displayed in Figures 1 to 5.The first cut at the data is the simplest: an X-Y scat-

terplot that charts the percentage of the vote won by aLatino candidate (Y axis) and the percentage of Lati-nos within the precinct (X axis). Although the X axisrepresents the percentage of Latinos, I have superim-

10 Percent Latino is based on registration in Los Angeles and NewYork and is based on voting age population in Houston, Denver, andSan Francisco. For the first method, voter registration records weremerged with a Spanish Surname list, which is based on the 1990Census and is constructed by tabulating the responses to theHispanic-origin question. Each surname is categorized by the per-centage of individuals that identified themselves as Hispanic. Eachsurname is then given a numeric value for the probability that per-sons with the surname are Hispanic. The list contains over 25,000surnames and is reliable at 94% confidence. For the second method,U.S. Census voting age population data were gathered at the censustract level for each city and merged in with precinct boundaries.

posed homogenous racial precincts for White, Black,and Asian communities on the same axis, creating fourtypes of precincts, heavily Latino, heavily White, heav-ily Black, and heavily Asian,11 that can be viewed onthe same spectrum. Although this analysis is basic, it isvery important. If no relationship can be found througha graphical presentation of the data, there is little valuein more sophisticated ecological inference or multi-variate regression techniques. The scatterplots give usthe ability to easily compare data across all five cities,for four different ethnic groups, to determine whetherthere is consistency in elections with Latino candidatesfrom the Democratic, Republican, and Green Parties.Across all five elections two trends are observable:

first, heavily Latino precincts tend to cluster together,exhibiting very similar patterns for candidate prefer-ence, and second, heavily Latino precincts display highrates of support for the Latino candidate, with fewexceptions. Just as heavily Latino precincts tend tocluster together, so too do heavily Black and heavilyWhite precincts. The interesting phenomenon is thatnon-Latino support for Latino candidates is not at allconsistent, changing from less than 10% support tomore than 80% support from one city to another, giventhe relevant history of each group in these five cities.Beyond these generalizations, there are also some in-teresting differences among the cities, which meritdiscussion.In Los Angeles, the 77 heavily Latino precincts are

clustered close together, all voting strongly in favorof the Latino candidate, Antonio Villaraigosa. Vil-laraigosa garnered a minimum of 72% and amaximumof 91%of the vote in theLatino precincts, while his sup-port in non-Latino precincts fluctuated greatly. Amongnon-Latino precincts, Villaraigosa received anywherebetween 8%and84%of the vote, according toFigure 1.For example, heavily Black precincts are clustered nearthe bottom left corner of the graph, almost universallyproviding less than 20%of the vote to theLatino candi-date. White precincts in Los Angeles are also groupedtogether, although they demonstrate a moderate rangeof support from about 25% to 65% for the Latino. Thefew Asian American concentrated precincts remainscattered. As the Latino population within a precinctincreases, so too does the support for Villaraigosa, in areasonably linear fashion.For Houston, the results are both similar and differ-

ent from those in Los Angeles. What is immediatelynoticeable is that the linear pattern evident in Fig-ure 1 is not present in Figure 2. The precinct resultsappear to be all over the map, with the exception ofheavily Latino parts of the city. Among the 64 heavilyLatino precincts in Houston, 57 are clustered in theupper right portion of the scatterplot, signifying major-ity support for the Latino candidate, Orlando Sanchez.

11 Heavily White and heavily Black precincts are those with a popu-lation of 80% or more homogenous. For Asian-American precincts,those identified as 50% or more Asian population were consideredheavilyAsiandue to small sample size considerations.HeavilyLatinoprecincts are those with a population over 80% Latino in all citiesexcept San Francisco, where the threshold is lower due to the smallnumber of observations, and instead majority Latino is used.

431


FIGURE 1. Vote for Latino Candidate by Racial/Ethnic Composition of Precinct, Los Angeles 2001

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% Latino in precinct

% W

on V

illar

aigo

sa

White Black Asian Latino

FIGURE 2. Vote for Latino Candidate by Racial/Ethnic Composition of Precinct, New York City 2001

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%% Latino in precinct

% W

on F

erre

r


In only two heavily Latino precincts did Sanchez, aRepublican, collect less than 35% of the vote. Amongnon-Latino precincts, there is not such a clear pattern,with Sanchez winning more than 90% of the vote andalso losing more than 90% of the vote. Here, Hous-ton displays remarkably similar patterns to Los An-geles, even though the two Latino candidates are dif-ferent. The Republican Latino candidate drew strongsupport from both Latinos and Whites, but receivedvirtually no support among heavily Black precincts inHouston.In New York City, the results conform to those in

Los Angeles, at least at first glance. Looking at the134 high concentration Latino precincts (Figure 3), theLatino candidate, Fernando Ferrer, received between71%and 97%percent of the vote. There are no outliersamong Latino precincts, with all precincts over 65%

Latino clustered closely together, demonstrating con-gruity in their voting patterns. Although the relation-ship between percentage of Latino and vote for Ferreris clearly linear, there is much variance in the non-Latino vote. For example, in precincts with less thana 10% Latino population, Ferrer received as little as2% and as much as 97% of the vote in the Democraticprimary election. In sharp contrast to Los Angeles andHouston, Figure 3 reveals that aLatinoBlack coalitionwas behind the Puerto Rican candidate in New York,with heavily White precincts offering little support tothe Ferrer. Overall, precincts are clustered tightly byrace and ethnicity with respect to their voting patternsin New York.San Francisco has fewer heavily Latino precincts

than any of the other cities; however, the samepattern emerges with respect to their voting patterns

432


FIGURE 3. Vote for Latino Candidate by Racial/Ethnic Composition of Precinct, Houston 2001

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


% W

on S

anch

ez


FIGURE 4. Vote for Latino Candidate by Racial/Ethnic Composition of Precinct, San Francisco 2003

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%% Latino in precinct

% W

on G

onza

lez


(Figure 4). Majority Latino precincts in San Franciscoall demonstrated strong support for the Latino can-didate, Matt Gonzalez of the Green Party. In the 21heavily Latino precincts, Gonzalez never received lessthan two-thirds of the vote, and as much as 83%. Infact, his highest vote totals in the entire city came fromheavily Latino precincts. Six of the 21 Latino precinctsgave Gonzalez more than 80% of the vote. In contrast,in only 2 out of 540 non-Latino precincts did Gonzalezreceive 80%of the vote. SanFranciscodoes not demon-strate quite as much racial clustering, although manypatterns are observable among non-Latinos. Most no-tably, heavily Black precincts tended to vote againstGonzalez. Only 1 of the 22 Black precincts in San Fran-cisco voted for Gonzalez, and there he only received51% of the vote (Figure 4). Asian-American precincts

were also concentrated around the 45% or less area,with only 3 of the 91 heavily Asian precincts voting infavor of Gonzalez. White concentration precincts onthe other hand varied widely in their support levelsfor the Latino candidate. Precincts from Gonzalezscounty supervisor district, which are among the mostliberal, gave him strong support, whereas other heav-ily White precincts voted in favor of his Whiteopponent.The final scatterplot is for Denver, and although

there are some notable outliers, high-concentrationLatino precincts tended to vote in favor of the Latinocandidate, Don Mares. Of the 34 heavily Latinoprecincts in Denver, 27 voted in favor of Mares and7 voted for the non-Latino candidate, Hickenlooper.Generally, the Latino precincts are clustered together,

433


FIGURE 5. Vote for Latino Candidate by Racial/Ethnic Composition of Precinct, Denver 2003

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


% W

on M

ares


TABLE 1. Double-Equation Ecological Inference Estimates of Support forLatino Candidate

Los Angeles Houston New York San Francisco DenverLatino 89% 79% 84% 91% 89%Non-Latino 27% 43% 30% 40% 29%Black 20% 10% 75% 49% 41%White 37% 80% 20% 46% 28%Asian 30% 50% 40% 24% 71%N 1,730 614 3,449 561 422Note: Double-equation ecological inference employed (for more see Grofman and Merrill 2004).

and a linear pattern is present with Maress supportlevel increasing as the precinct becomes more Latino.In particular, two heavily Latino precincts reportedvery low levels of support for the Latino candidate,found in the lower right portion of Figure 5. Despitethese two cases, Mares did appear to mobilize theLatino community even while trailing in the polls bymore than 20 points throughout the election. Further,Denver shows Latino and White precincts at odds,both clustered in opposite corners of the graph inFigure 5. Of the 128 heavilyWhite precincts in Denver,only 3 voted in favor of the Latino candidate. AmongBlack precincts, support for Mares was moderate tolow, a change from the Pena elections in Denver whenBlack support for the Latino candidate was very high(Hero 1992).

Vote Preference Regression Estimates forLatino CandidatesThe graphs in Figure 5 illustrate that heavily Latinoprecincts show consistent support for Latino candi-dates. However, it is difficult to know how Latinos inmixed or non-Latino precincts voted by looking at thescatterplots. Using ecological inference technique, wecan provide point estimates for candidate support by

race and ethnicity, to give us a sense for how eachof the diverse Latino candidate faired among Latinovoters overall. Because we do not have accurate dataon what percentage of the electoratewas Latino in eachcitythe exact measure needed for precise vote pref-erence estimatesa double-equation version of Kingsecological inference that takes account of non votingis used to fine-tune the independent variable, percentLatino (for more on this technique see Grofman andMerrill 2004). The double-equation ecological infer-ence results for each of the five cities are presented inTable 1.Overall, Latino candidates received strong support

from Latino voters, without regard for party. The esti-mates indicate that Latino voters greatly preferred theLatino candidates in all five cities, whereas non-Latinosupport was mixed. In Los Angeles, Denver, and SanFrancisco, the Latino candidate received about 90%of the Latino vote. In New York 84% of Latinos sup-ported a co-ethnic formayor and inHouston theLatinoRepublican candidate received 75%of the Latino vote.As a general finding, the Latino population always pre-ferred the Latino candidate, whereas non-Latinos as agroup never voted in favor of the Latino. Among non-Latinos, some differences do exist as noted earlier.These results clearly demonstrate the impor-

tance of ethnicity in understanding Latino political

434


TABLE 2. Full Regression Model Predicting Support for Latino CandidateLos Angeles Houston New York San Francisco DenverCoef. Beta Coef. Beta Coef. Beta Coef. Beta Coef. Beta

Latino .446 .460 .224 * .188 .738 .499 .464 .396 .251 .389(.017) (.108) (.024) (.040) (.101)

Black .602 .693 .376 .379 .289 .313 .156 .128 .100 .101(.017) (.114) (.020) (.042) (.108)

White .025 .046 .217 .216 .317 .390 .275 .406 .123 .217(.014) (.104) (.018) (.047) (.102)

Income .001 .051 .001 .091 .048 .027 .001 .598 .001 .049(.000) (.000) (.022) (.000) (.001)

College .306 .165 .236 .168 .017 .011 .059 .073 .229 .311(.047) (.058) (.018) (.061) (.047)

Age (50) .219 .108 .284 .122 .108 .062 .681 .394 .051 .045(.023) (.092) (.095) (.053) (.034)

Party (Rep) .795 .534 .452 .363 .003 .002 .141 .081 .232 .161(.024) (.059) (.033) (.051) (.048)

Registered .001 .013 .001 .096 .001 .001 .001 .024 .001 .058(.001) (.000) (.000) (.001) (.000)

Constant .676 .156 .375 .612 .587 (.019) (.107) (.017) (.099)

N 1,724 607 3,383 552 406Adj. R2 .831 .766 .815 .678 .776Chi 3069 890.4 5707 633.5 616.2Standard errors in parentheses. p < .001, p < .01, p < .05, two-tailed test.

participation for a variety of newfound reasons. First,the data are not limited to one geographic location,but instead span five different cities from coast to coast.Second, the cities represent diverse Latino populationsconsisting of large Mexican, Puerto Rican, Domini-can, Salvadoran, and Colombian populations. Third,the candidates themselves also reflect the diversity ofthe Latino population coming from Cuban, Mexican,andPuertoRican ancestry. Fourth, as previously noted,none of the elections featured a Latino Democratversus an Anglo Republican; instead they featuredLatino candidates from the Democratic, Republican,and Green Parties, all running against Democratic op-ponents. Finally, with the inclusion of Denver, the elec-tions are not exclusively first opportunities for Latinosto win the office of mayor (given Penas victories in the1980s).In addition to the bivariate analysis reported inTable

1, a more detailed multivariate regression was under-taken for each city to determine if the effects of ethnic-ity hold, after controlling for age, education, income,andmost important, partisanship (see Table 2). Gravesand Lee (2000) suggest that ethnicity is not a determi-nant of vote choice; rather, the issue of partisanshipis so strong a predictor that ethnicity has no directeffect. At most, ethnicity is thought to have an indirectinfluence on vote choice, by influencing partisanship.Instead, the data here suggest that ethnicity does infact have a direct effect on vote choice beyond that ofpartisanship.For all five cities, heavily Latino precincts were

statistically more likely to vote for the Latino can-didate, and the standardized beta coefficients sug-gest that ethnicity was a robust predictor of votepreference (Table 2). This finding, consistent withKaufmanns analysis of mayoral elections, supports

the empowerment hypothesis that suggests in-groupidentification is a powerful electoral cue (2003,116).In fact, percent Latino is the only variable that is

both statistically significant and positive across all fivemodels. In comparison, percent Black is negative infour of the five models (the exception is New York),and percentWhite is positive twice (Houston, San Fran-cisco) and negative three times. Thus, while Latinosare consistent supporters of Latino candidates, othercoalition partners (African Americans or Anglos) maycome and go depending on the local context (note theomitted racial category in the multivariate analysis isAsian and/or Other). This strengthens the finding thatethnicity matters for Latinos, because other groups ofvoters do not show consistent results in elections whenLatino candidates are present. However, this may alsobe the result of non-Latino opponents playing the racecard, and dampening the Latino candidates citywideappeal, as suggested by Reeves (1990).Finally, the partisan dynamics in each of these elec-

tions provides more assurances that party identifica-tion is not driving the results. In Los Angeles, NewYork, and Denver, both candidates in the runoff areregistered with the Democratic Party. Because the twocandidates were both Democrats, it is possible thatLatinos in these three cities were free to vote for theLatino candidate and that the same situation wouldnot hold were a Republican candidate present. How-ever, if partisanship or ideology were the driving force,we would still expect Latino voters to evaluate bothDemocratic candidates with respect to the issues andpolicies at play, resulting in a more equal split betweenthe two candidates. Multiple surveys of Latino regis-tered voters have found strong ties to the DemocraticParty, but a split in ideological tendencies with roughly

435


TABLE 3. Estimates of Voter Turnout in Latino and Non-Latino Candidate ElectionsLos Angeles Houston New York San Francisco Denver

Eno ELat Chg Eno ELat Chg Eno ELat Chg Eno ELat Chg Eno ELat ChgLatino 29% 41% 12% 16% 22% 6% 19% 34% 15% 39% 44% 5% 25% 29% 4%Non-Latino 34% 35% 1% 25% 33% 8% 48% 28% 20% 44% 56% 12% 27% 23% 4%Black 32% 35% 3% 26% 35% 9% 29% 32% 3% 35% 35% 0% 25% 25% 0%White 34% 35% 1% 24% 30% 6% 54% 27% 24% 39% 65% 24% 28% 23% 5%Asian 25% 27% 2% 18% 18% 0% 18% 14% 4% 35% 42% 7% 15% 13% 2%

TABLE 4. Seemingly Unrelated Regression Model Predicting Voter Turnout in 2 ElectionsLos Angeles Houston New York San Francisco Denver

Eno ELat Edif Eno ELat Edif Eno ELat Edif Eno ELat Edif Eno ELat EdifLatino .185 .673 .488 .481 .001 .482 .279 .067 .346 .056 .228 .172 .322 .895 .573Black .096 .393 .297 .301 .329 .028 .220 .017 .203 .193 .231 .040 .195 .208 .013White .589 .529 .060 .425 .415 .010 .435 .184 .251 .602 .551 .051 .862 .758 .104Income .163 .213 .376 .232 .167 .065 .266 .034 .232 .105 .194 .089 .179 .291 .122College .144 .114 .030 .099 .084 .015 .075 .089 .014 .044 .062 .018 .055 .074 .019Age (50) .175 .373 .198 .370 .119 .261 .234 .156 .078 .209 .177 .032 .298 .281 .017Party (R) .073 .137 .064 .229 .112 .117 .301 .282 .019 .266 .183 .083 .107 .495 .602Registered .165 .230 .065 .076 .051 .127 .037 .203 .240 .022 .033 .011 .212 .147 .065Intercept .402 .098 .146 .362 .368 .027 .331 .143 .178 .266

N 1,724 1,724 607 607 3,383 3,383 552 552 406 406Adj. R2 .242 .348 .174 .183 .108 .135 .593 .717 .309 .284Chi 485.1 744.9 159.2 131.1 712.8 778.8 583.9 705.6 144.5 126.9Note: Differences between coefficients are statistically significant, p < .001; p < .050.

equal thirds identifying as liberal, moderate and con-servative (Tomas Rivera Policy Institute [TRPI] 2000;Pew Hispanic 2004). Thus, we might expect conserva-tive Latinos to select the more conservative Democrat,liberal Latinos to select the more liberal Democrat,and moderate Latinos to split their vote between thetwoDemocrats, resulting in something close to a 5050split between the Latino and non-Latino candidates.Because of the overwhelming support for Villaraigosa,Ferrer, and Mares among Latinos, ethnicity should beconsidered as a primary determinant of vote choicewhen a co-ethnic candidate is present.In the other two cities, Houston and San Francisco,

we would expect partisanship to work against thenon-Democratic Latino candidates. Among the heav-ily Mexican-American Latino populations in these twocities, recent literature would suggest that Democraticcandidates would have the edge (Uhlaner and Garcia2005). Indeed, evidence from both cities suggests thatLatinos in Houston and San Francisco vote Demo-crat. In 2000, the Democratic presidential candidateAl Gore won 70% of the vote in Houstons heavilyLatino precincts, and in 2002 Democratic GovernorGray Davis won more than 80% of the vote in SanFranciscos heavily Latino precincts. However, the re-sults here show that, even controlling for Democraticpartisanship, heavily Latino precincts were statisticallymore likely to vote for the non-Democratic Latinocandidates in these cities. This is consistent with re-cent work by Nuno (2007) that suggests Latinos canbe compelled to vote Republican, but only if they aremobilized by Latino Republicans, which was certainlythe case in Houston.

Voter Turnout: Comparing Latino andNon-Latino Elections

Tables 3 and 4 contain the turnout results for theLatinocandidate election and non-Latino candidate election.To assess the impact that Latino candidates have onturnout, two estimates are provided, similar to the can-didate preference estimates. First, ecological inferenceis used to calculate the turnout rate, among registered,for each racial and ethnic group across all five cities.Second, for both elections, multivariate regression isperformed with coefficients and standardized beta es-timates reported, to provide a comparison between thetwo elections. Such analysis allows us to answer twocompelling questions about Latino political participa-tion. First, when a Latino candidate is present, do heav-ily Latino precincts vote at elevated rates, as comparedto an election with no Latino candidate? Second, inan election with a Latino candidate, do heavily Latinoprecincts witness higher turnout compared to precinctsthat are predominantly White or Black? To answerthe first question we can compare standardized betasfor percent Latino in election 1 and election 2, withineach city. To answer the second question, we can com-pare standardized betas for different racial and ethnicgroups, within the Latino candidate election only.At first blush, Table 3 confirms the Latino voter

turnout hypotheses. The first column within each city,denoted by Eno, represents the estimated turnout ratefor each group in the electionwith noLatino candidate,whereas the second column (ELat) represents the elec-tion when a Latino candidate was running for mayor.Across all five cities, Latino voter turnout is estimated

436


to be higher in the election with a Latino candidatepresent. In contrast, there was no consistent patternamong changes in turnout for non-Latinos. However,each election also reflects a different level of compet-itiveness and public interest; thus we can not read toomuch into the bivariate results. A more accurate anal-ysis is detailed in Table 4, which reports the results formultivariate regression for bothLatino and non-Latinocandidate elections.For each city, two regression models were estimated

simultaneouslyone for the election with no Latinocandidate (Eno) and a second for the election featur-ing a Latino candidate (ELat). Using Zellners (1962)seemingly unrelated regression, we can estimate bothmodels together, and then test for significant differ-ences between coefficients and cross-equation parame-ter restrictions. For ease of comparability, standardizedbeta coefficients are reported in Table 4. The betas inTable 4 allow us to make two important comparisons:(1) to compare the results for percent Latino acrosstime and (2) to compare the results for percent Latinoto percent Black and percent White at a single point intime.Comparing coefficients across models helps to fur-

ther demonstrate that different electoral circumstancesmay lead to quite different results. Cross-model com-parisons are often used to measure differences in in-stitutions and political environments, most notably inVerba, Nie, and Kim (1978). In this research, the mod-els presented contain the same independent variables,and in both, the dependent variables measure voterturnout. Thus, we can be confident in the differencescomparing across the two elections.First, after controlling for a variety of other fac-

tors, heavily Latino precincts significantly increasedvoter turnout when a Latino candidate was runningfor office in all five cities. Although this is consistentwith the ecological inference analysis in Table 3, bycomparing standardized beta coefficient, we are neu-tralizing the potential bias of competitive elections inLatino candidate years, by standardizing the slope ofthe equation.Although the unstandardized coefficientsmight be misleading, the standardized betas representthe magnitude of the effect after normalizing all theindependent variables within the model. In addition,using linear combinations of parameters tests, we candetermine whether the change between betas is statis-tically significant. Even if the coefficients for a givenvariable in model Eno and model ELat are both signif-icant, it does not necessarily mean that the differencebetween the two is a statistically significant change, andthe postestimation utilities employed allow us to con-duct such a test.With this level of statistical analysis, wecan say with certainty that as a precinct becomes moreLatino, the likelihood of turnout greatly increases inan election with a Latino candidate.Without regard to the partisanship of the Latino

candidates or the local context surrounding the cam-paigns in the five different cities, Latino precincts wit-nessed the largest and most consistent increases invoter turnout duringLatino candidate elections. In fact,none of the other variables in the models changed by

as much, or in as consistent a pattern from the non-Latino election to the Latino candidate election. Al-though Latino candidates may have either mobilizingor demobilizing effects for other groups of voters, thesedata reveal that shared ethnicity has a strongmobilizingeffect for Latino voters.These results contradict most research in this area,

but complement other studies (Gilliam and Kaufmann1998; Kaufmann 2003) that show that Black voterturnout in Los Angeles was higher than average whena Black candidate was present, and that Latinos inDenver voted at higher rates than non-Latinos whena Latino candidate was present. It also lends supportto the notion Garcia and Arce (1988) posited, thatLatino turnout may be similar and sometimes higherthan that of non-Latinos as a result of situational fac-tors such as local personalities and ethnically definedpolitical races, local issues compelling to Chicanos,historical patterns, and sophisticated organizationalactivities.In two cities, Los Angeles and Denver, the stan-

dardized betas for Latino precincts are the largestof any group, suggesting their turnout rate was thehighest. This marked the first time in Los Angelesthat Latino voter turnout exceeded that of Blacks orWhites, whereas in Denver, Latino turnout had alsobeen quite high during the Pena elections in the 1980s,and here again in the Mares election in 2003. In NewYork and San Francisco, the betas for Latino precinctsare higher than for Black precincts, but only abouthalf the size of the betas for White precincts. Interest-ingly, these two cities displayed opposite patterns withrespect to the Black and White vote for the Latinocandidates (see Table 3). Given the high levels of par-ticipation by White votes, this might be suggestive ofeither supportive or backlash mobilization in responseto the Latino candidate. White voters in New Yorkmay have turned out to vote against Ferrer, whereasin San Francisco liberal White voters were part of theGonzalez coalition. In contrast, Latino-concentratedprecincts in Houston reported far lower betas thanthose for Black-or White-concentrated precincts. Al-though the Sanchez candidacy did have a mobilizingeffect on Latinos, the historically low turnout rates intheLatino community inHoustonmay have prohibitedrecord high turnout. Although Sanchez did well amongLatino voters, it is possible that a Latino Democratwould have been more successful at mobilizing Latinovoters inHouston, wheremost Latino registered votersare Democrats.Overall, the evidence from the Latino candidate

election is mixed, when viewed in a vacuum. Amongheavily Latino precincts, voter turnout was the high-est, in the middle, and also the lowest across the fivecities. However, when we compare across two elec-tions, the picture is much clearer. In every instance,Latino precincts witnessed a significant increase invoter turnout in the election with a Latino candidate.Further, even where Latinos had lower rates of vot-ing than non-Latinos, such as Houston, the differen-tial was substantially smaller in the Latino candidateelection.

437


Latino Candidates and Non-Latino Turnout

The previous discussion has mostly focused on the ef-fects of Latino candidates for heavily Latino precincts.In part this is due to Latino precincts exhibiting theclearest patterns of vote growth between Eno and ELat;however, patterns are also observable among non-Latinos. First, in all five of the Latinoless elections,White precincts demonstrate themost robust standard-ized betas, suggesting they had the highest rates ofturnout. This is consistent with extant literature thatfinds Whites participating at higher rates than Blacks,Latinos, and Asian Americans (among the compara-tive studies, Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995). How-ever, heavily White precincts registered a net deficit inturnout in the election with a Latino candidate. Cal-culating the change in the standardized beta betweenelections,White precincts demonstrated less robust be-tas in all five elections with Latino candidates. In part,this is a result of higher than average turnout in the non-Latino elections, making it more difficult for Whitesto grow their turnout rates in the Latino elections.However, it may also be the flipside of the coin thatleads scholars to decry low rates of participation amongLatinos. This article argues that coethnic candidatesare important mobilizing instrument because they helpengage minority communities, increase the opportu-nity to be mobilized, and perhaps increase the levelof interest in elections. For Whites, elections that fea-ture viable Latino (or Black) candidates may slightlyreduce their level of interest and participation rates.This finding is consistent with Barreto, Segura, andWoodss (2004) research, that White turnout is lowerin majority-Latino districts than in majority-White dis-tricts. This is not to say thatWhite turnoutwill plummetin an election with a Latino candidate, rather, that theirturnout may be higher during an election featuring twoWhite candidatesthe inverse of the theory describedhere.African Americans show less consistent patterns

than Latinos orWhites in the ten elections under study.In Los Angeles and Houston, there appears to be amobilizing effect, althoughmany pundits observed thatBlacks were mobilized in opposition to the Latino can-didacy in these two cities (Fleck 2001; Sonenshein andPinkus 2002). This would be consistent with the resultsof the scatterplots as well as Table 2 which both showheavilyBlack precincts voting against theLatino candi-dates. InLosAngeles, theAnglo candidate JamesHahnhad strong ties to the African American community,and his father, Kenneth Hahn, was a county supervisorin a traditionally black district. In Houston, the non-Latino candidate Lee Brownwas anAfricanAmericanwho was quite popular among Houstons Black com-munity and leadership. If Black voters in these twocities viewed the Latino candidate as a potential threatto Black representation, it is reasonable to expect in-creased turnout in heavily Black precincts. In NewYork, a high percentage of Blacks supported Ferrer inthe Democratic runoff, and like Latinos, their turnoutrate dropped in the all-White general election betweenGreen and Bloomberg. In San Francisco, Black con-

centrated precincts were marginally less likely to votein theGonzalez election and inDenver Black precinctsexhibited an increase in turnout during theMares elec-tion. Without a consistent pattern, it is difficult to ex-pandmuch on the implications for Black-Brown politi-cal relationships. If anything, the data here suggest thatBlack-Brown dynamics are mediated by local context,absent an overwhelming national issue thatmight uniteor divide these two communities.The demographic control variables in the models

perform as expected, with age, income and educationpositive and significant predictors of turnout. Age andeducation are positive in all 10. of the models esti-mated, while income is a positive predictor in nine.

CONCLUSIONDuring March, April and May 2006, more than 3 mil-lion Latinos took to the streets to protest immigrationproposals passed by the House, and to call for respectand equality for documented and undocumented im-migrants living in the United States. Without regardto nativity, immigrant status, generation, or age, Lati-nos of all backgrounds participated in the immigrationrallies in 2006. The implication was clear: shared eth-nicity was an overwhelming mobilizing force for manyin the Latino community. In this article, the notionthat shared ethnicity directly influences Latino votechoice was consistently found to be true. Additionally,when a viable co-ethnic candidate is present, Latinoswill turnout to vote at heightened rates, and in someinstances vote at rates greater than those of other eth-nic and racial groupsincluding whites. Through a de-tailed analysis of 10 elections in five cities, this researchfound shared ethnicity to be an important predictorof Latino political participation. Precincts with largerproportions of Latino registrants were more likely toevidence high rates of turnout when a Latino candi-date was running for office, and to vote for the Latinocandidate.Although previous research examined the effect of

one Latino candidate in isolation, either for a sin-gle congressional district (Cain and Kiewiet 1984),statewide office but limited to one state (Graves andLee2000), or formayoral candidates, but in just one city(Barreto, Villarreal, and Woods 2005; Hill, Moreno,and Cue 2001; Manzano and Vega 2006), this studyis the first to bring together multiple data sets fromacross the country to test the systematic effect of Latinocandidates on political participation. To some degree,previous analysis is limited to the extent that the fac-tors present in one city or state may not be present inother areas throughout the nation. In contrast, the dataemployed here are broad in scope, and the implicationsderived from this effort are far reaching.First, unlike the voluminous array of research on

political participation, this research shows that in somecircumstance Latinos will turnout to vote. Second, thisresearch calls into question the finding that race andethnicity are less relevant determinants of candidatepreference (Graves and Lee 2000) or ethnic political

438


participation generally (DeSipio 1996). Specifically, thedata demonstrate that voter preferences may be di-rectly influenced by ethnicity. This confirms anew aprevailing theme that is borrowed from the empower-ment literature (Bobo and Gilliam 1990; Tate 1993),that the presence of co-ethnic candidates will influenceminority electoral participation.This article reveals that Latino voter turnout is not

predestined to such low levels that research over thelast 40 years suggests. In most of the previous research,no viable Latino candidates were present at the top ofthe ticket and Latino voters may not have felt in touchwith the predominantly Anglo candidates running foroffice. The mayoral elections reviewed here providea broad context to test this scenario for Latino voterturnout. In fact, this research finds that although heav-ily Latino precincts are unlikely to have high levelsof turnout when no Latino candidate is running, thepresence of a viable Latino candidate uniformly resultsin increased voter turnout in Latino precincts.The implications of these results should not be

limited to the five cities discussed. The 2006 CurrentPopulation Survey reveals that minority populationsare growing throughout the United States and manylarge urban centers have (or will soon have) a majorityminority population. Future mayoral elections, as wellas statewide elections that feature co-ethnic candidatesshould be expected to mobilize the Latino electorate,in a manner similar to that chronicled here, and leadto high levels of voter turnout. Though the argumentcan be extended beyond the scope of city elections.Already, research has demonstrated amobilizing effectfor Latino voters living in overlapping majority-Latinolegislative districts, which are typically represented byLatino office holders (Barreto, Segura, and Woods2004). Although it is true that the effect of ethnicityas a mobilizing agent may be stronger in local (often

nonpartisan) elections when candidate attributes drawmore attention from the media and voters, we shouldalso witness a mobilizing effect for Latino candidatesfor Governor, U.S. Senate, or President.As the political landscape changes in the twenty-

first century and Spanish-surname candidates becomethe norm in American elections, pundits and scholarsalike will need to revisit the question of Latino andminority participation. The number of Latinos electedto municipal office in the United States increasedfrom 987 in 1984 to 1,624 in 2006, a 64% increase.Cities such as Phoenix, SanDiego, Dallas, Jacksonville,Milwaukee, Boston, Las Vegas, and Washington DChave growing Latino populations, and each has at leastone prominentLatino-electedmunicipal official.Otherlarge cities, such as San Antonio, El Paso, and Miamihave already documented Latinomobilization throughthe election of Latino mayors. However, as Latinocandidates become more and more prominent, it ispossible that the salience of ethnicity will recede. Thisis difficult to forecast because the politics of ethnicityis a two-way street, with both the campaign and theindividual voter relying on ethnic cues. Demographicprojections suggest that immigration and naturaliza-tion among Latinos will continue, providing a growingLatino electorate with a sizable component of first-generation Americans. Further, given the perceivedsuccess of Spanish-language outreach and advertisingby presidential candidates in 2000 and 2004, all cam-paigns are likely to continue engaging the Latino voterthrough ethnic means (DeFrancesco Soto and Merolla2006). Although Latino candidates may focus more onwinning a coalition of voters through nonethnic cam-paigns, their candidacies and campaigns are likely tocontinue resonating with Latino voters.

APPENDIX

Table A1. Summary of Mayoral Candidates 20012003City Latino Candidate Non-Latino Candidate Winner (Percent)Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa James Hahn Hahn (53%)(47% Latino pop.) Mexican American Democrat Anglo Democrat

Houston Orlando Sanchez Lee Brown Brown (52%)(37% Latino pop.) Cuban American Republican African American Democrat

New York primary Fernando Ferrer Mark Green Green (51%)(27% Latino pop.) Puerto Rican Democrat Anglo (Jewish) Democrat

San Francisco Matt Gonzalez Gavin Newsom Newsom (53%)(14% Latino pop.) Mexican American Green Anglo Democrat

Denver Don Mares John Hickenlooper Hickenlooper (65%)(32% Latino pop.) Mexican American Democrat Anglo Democrat

Table A2. Summary of Mayoral Data and Observations by CityCity Latino Mayoral Election Comparison Election Number of ObservationsLos Angeles June 5, 2001, Mayoral Runoff March 3, 1997, Mayoral General 1,730Houston November 2001 Mayoral Runoff November 1999 Mayoral General 614New York October 24, 2001, Mayoral Runoff (D) November 4, 2001, Mayoral Runoff 3,449San Francisco November 2003 Mayoral Runoff November 1999 Mayoral Runoff 561Denver December 2003 Mayoral Runoff December 1999 Mayoral Runoff 422

439


REFERENCESAbosch, Yishaiya,MattA. Barreto, andNathanD.Woods. 2007. AnAssessment of Racially Polarized Voting For and Against LatinoCandidates in California. In Voting Right Act Reauthorizationof 2006: Perspectives on Democracy, Participation, and Power, ed.Ana Henderson. Berkeley: UC Berkeley Public Policy Press.

Barreto, Matt A., Gary M. Segura, and Nathan D. Woods. 2004.The Mobilizing Effect of Majority-Minority Districts on LatinoTurnout. The American Political Science Review 98 (February):6575.

Barreto, Matt A., Mario Villarreal, and Nathan D. Woods. 2005.Metropolitan Latino Political Behavior: Turnout and CandidatePreference in Los Angeles. Journal of Urban Affairs 27 (Febru-ary): 7191.

Bobo, Lawrence, and Frank D. Gilliam. 1990. Race, Sociopoliti-cal Participation, and Black Empowerment. American PoliticalScience Review 84 (June): 37793.

Bowler, Shaun, and Gary Segura. 2005.Diversity in Democracy: Mi-nority Representation in the United States Charlottesville: Univer-sity of Virginia Press.

Browning, Rufus P., DaleRogersMarshall, andDavidH. Tabb. 1984.Protest is Not Enough.LosAngeles:University of California Press.

Brichetto, Robert R., and Rodolfo de la Garza. 1985. The Mexi-can American Electorate: Political Opinions and Behavior AcrossCultures in San Antonio Occasional Paper No. 5. San Antonio:Southwest Voter Registration Project.

Cain, Bruce E., and D. Roderick Kiewiet. 1984. Ethnicity and Elec-toralChoice:MexicanAmericanVotingBehavior in theCalifornia30th Congressional District. Social Science Quarterly 65: 31527.

Cain,BruceE.,D.RoderickKiewiet, andCaroleUhlaner. 1991. TheAcquisition of Partisanship by Latinos and Asian Americans.American Journal of Political Science 35(May): 390422.

Calvo, Maria A., and Steven J. Rosenstone 1989. Hispanic PoliticalParticipation. San Antonio: Southwest Voter Research Institute.

Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in anAmerican City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

DeFrancesco Soto, Victoria and Jennifer Merolla. 2006. Vota portu Forturo: Partisan Mobilization of Latino Voters in the 2000Presidential Election. Political Behavior 28 (Dec): 285304.

DeSipio, Louis. 1996. Counting on the Latino Vote: Latinos as a NewElectorate. Charlottesville, NC: University of Virginia Press.

DeSipio, Louis, and Natalie Masuoka. 2006. Opportunities Lost?Latinos, Cruz Bustamante, and Californias Recall. In ClickerPolitics, ed. Shaun Bowler and Bruce Cain. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson.

de la Garza, Rodolfo O., Charles W. Haynes, and Jaesung Ryu 2002.An Analysis of Latino Voter Turnout Patterns in the 19921998General Elections in Harris County, Texas. Harvard Journal ofHispanic Policy 14: 7795.

de la Garza, Rodolfo O., Martha Menchaca, and Louis DeSipio, eds.1994.Barrio Ballots: Latino Politics in the 1990Elections. Boulder,CO: Westview Press.

Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. NewYork: Harper and Row.

Engstrom, Richard L., and Robert B. Brischetto. 1997. CumulativeVoting and Latino Representation: Exit Surveys in Fifteen TexasCommunities. Social Science Quarterly 78 (December): 97391.

Espino, Rodolfo. 2007. Is there a Latino dimension to voting inCongress? In Latino Politics: Identity, Mobilization, and Repre-sentation, ed. Rodolfo Espino, David Leal, and Ken Meier. Char-lottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.

Fleck, Tim. 2001. Runoff worries: Brown duplicates 1997 showing,but Sanchez has the momentum. The Houston Press. November15.

Fraga, Luis R. 1988. Domination through democratic means: Non-partisan slating groups in city electoral politics. Urban AffairsQuaterly 23 (4): 52855.

Fry, Brian. 2001. Anti-Immigrant Backlash: 1965 to the Present.In Encyclopedia of American Immigration, ed. James Ciment. Ar-monk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Garcia, John A., and Carlos H. Arce. 1988. Political Orientationsand Behaviors of Chicanos: Trying toMake Sense out of Attitudesand Participation. In Pursuing Power: Latinos and the PoliticalSystem, ed. F. Chris Garcia. Notre Dame: University of NotreDame Press.

Garcia, John A., F. Chris Garcia, Rodolfo de la Garza, and AngeloFalcon. 1991. Ethnicity and National Origin Status: Patterns ofIdentities Among Latinos in the U.S. Presented at Annual Meet-ing of the American Political Science Association.

Gilliam, Frank D. 1996. Exploring Minority Empowerment: Sym-bolic Politics, Governing Coalitions and Traces of Political Style inLosAngeles.American Journal of Political Science 40 (February):5681.

Gilliam, Frank D., and Karen M. Kaufmann. 1998. Is There anEmpowerment Life Cycle? Long-Term Black Empowerment andIts Influence on Voter Participation. Urban Affairs Review 33:6(July): 766.

Goodman, Leo. 1953. Ecological regression and the behavior ofindividuals. American Sociological Review 18(6): 66364

Graves, Scott and Jongho Lee. 2000. Ethnic Underpinnings of Vot-ing Preference: Latinos and the 1996 U.S. Senate Election Texas.Social Science Quarterly 81 (March): 22636.

Grofman, Bernard, 1993. Voting rights in a multi-ethnic world.Chicano-Latino Law Review. 13(15): 1537.

Grofman, Bernard, and Samuel, Merrill III. 2004 Ecological Re-gression and Ecological Inference? InEcological Inference: NewMethodological Strategies, ed. Gary King, Ori Rosen and MartinTanner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hero,Rodney. 1992.Latinos and theU.S.Political System:Two-TieredPluralism. Philadelphia: Temple Press.

Hero, Rodney, and Susan Clarke. 2003. Latinos, Blacks, and Multi-ethnic Politics in Denver: Realigning Power and Influence in theStruggle for Equality. In Racial Politics in American Cities, ed.Rufus P. Browning, Dale Rogers Marshall, and David H. Tabb.White Plains, NY: Longman.

Hill, Kevin, DarioMoreno, and Lourdes Cue. 2001. Racial and Par-tisan Voting in a Tri-Ethnic City: The 1996 Dade County MayoralElection. Journal of Urban Affairs 23 (July): 291307.

Huntington, Samuel. 2004. TheHispanic Challenge.ForeignPolicy141: 3045.

Jacobson, Gary C. 1987. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 2nded. Boston: Little Brown.

Kaufmann, Karen. 2003. Black and Latino Voters in Denver: Re-sponses to Each Others Political Leadership. Political ScienceQuarterly 118 (April): 10725.

Keiser, Richard. 1990. The Rise of a Biracial Coalition in Philadel-phia. InRacial Politics in American Cities, ed. Rufus P. Browning,Dale Rogers Marshall, and David H. Tabb. White Plains, NY:Longman.

King,Gary. 1997.ASolution to theEcological Inference Problem: Re-constructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

Leighley, Jan E. 2001. Strength in Numbers? The Political Mobi-lization of Racial and Ethnic Minorities. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Lemus, Frank. 1973. National Roster of Spanish Surnamed ElectedOfficials. Los Angeles: Aztlan Publications.

Lester,Will. 2001. TheDynamic of Ethnic Loyalty. TheAssociatedPress. Reprinted in The Puerto Rico Herald. December 7.

Manzano, Sylvia, and Arturo Vega. 2006. I Dont See Color, I VoteFor the Best Candidate: The Persistence of Ethnic Polarized Vot-ing. Presented at the annual meeting of the Western PoliticalScience Association.

Masuoka, Natalie. 2006. Together They Become One: Examiningthe Predictors of Panethnic Group Consciousness Among AsianAmericans and Latinos. Social Science Quarterly 87 (5).

Miller, Arthur, Patricia Gurin, Gerald Gurin, and OksanaMalanchuk. 1981. Group Consciousness and Political Partici-pation. American Journal of Political Science 25 (August): 494511.

Munoz, Carlos, and Charles P. Henry. 1986. Rainbow Coalitions inFourBig Cities: SanAntonio,Denver, Chicago, and Philadelphia.PS: Political Science and Politics 19(Summer): 598609.

Nelson,BrentA. 1994.AmericaBalkanized: ImmigrationsChallengeto Government. Monterey, VA: American Immigration ControlFoundation.

Nuno, Stephen. 2007. Latino Mobilization and Vote Choice inthe 2000 Presidential Election. American Politics Research 35(March).

Pachon, Harry. 1998. Latino Politics in the Golden State: Readyfor the 21st Century? In Racial and Ethnic Politics in California,

440


ed. Byran O. Jackson and Michael B. Preston. Berkeley: Institutefor Governmental Studies, University of California.

Pachon, Harry. 1999. California Latino Politics and the 1996 Elec-tions: From Potential to Reality. In Awash in the Mainstream,ed. Rodolfo O. de la Garza and Louis DeSipio. Boulder; CO:Westview Press.

Pachon, Harry, and Louis DeSipio. 1992. Latino Elected Officialsin the 1990s. PS: Political Science & Politics. 25 (June): 21217.

Pantoja, AdrianD., Stephen P. Nicholson, andGaryM. Segura. 2006.Political Knowledge and Issue Voting Among the Latino Elec-torate. Political Research Quarterly 59 (June).

Pantoja, Adrian D., Ricardo Ramrez, and Gary M. Segura. 2001.Citizens by Choice, Voters by Necessity

Documents

Barreto 2007